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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds a hard invocation gate not present in structured data: a Pro account is required. It does not mention pagination or volume behavior, keeping this from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the core action and account requirement first, the disambiguation from the sibling second. Zero filler or restatement of the name.

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?

For a read-only history tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered: what it returns conceptually, who can call it, and how it differs from the sibling. Pagination semantics for cursor/limit remain unexplained, which is the only real gap.

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 description coverage is only 40% (since and context documented; limit, cursor, response_format bare). The description says nothing about limits, cursors, defaults, or the 1-90 range, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Get your wearing check-in history over time') and explicitly scopes it to the caller's own data. It actively distinguishes itself from fragrance_get_wearing_stats, which it identifies as returning aggregate community data for a specific fragrance.

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?

Names an alternative tool and the condition that separates them (own history here vs. community aggregate on a specific fragrance), which is clear directional guidance. It stops short of any explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite framing beyond the account requirement.

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