Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that — the examples show what each query type actually returns ('oud' returns the note plus top oud fragrances), which tells the agent about result composition. It does not cover pagination or result limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded scope sentence, then three compact illustrative examples, then a one-line routing note. Every sentence earns its place and the routing information is placed where an agent will read it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the examples partially compensate by showing what results look like. Usage routing and scope are complete. Minor gap: response_format (markdown/json) is never mentioned in the description, and result size/limit behavior is unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% and the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that the query searches across the same entity list already given in the query parameter's schema description. The verbose 'context' parameter is fully documented in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) and the full resource scope (fragrances, brands, notes, perfumers, collections) in a single call. The 'See also' line names the siblings it differs from (fragrance_search, trending), so an agent can separate it from alternatives without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use it ('quick lookups and vague queries') and routes to the correct alternative for other cases: fragrance_search for advanced fragrance-only filtering, trending for popularity. The conditions that select each path are stated, not inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.