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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond that: results are sorted A to Z and each record carries handle, niche flag, perfume count, and page URL. It stops short of saying whether results are paginated or capped.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the returned fields, then the optional filter. Nothing is redundant and nothing competes for attention.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent would otherwise lack for a read-only listing tool. The only real gap is result volume/pagination behavior, minor for a catalogue-scoped house list.

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 100% and the single query parameter is already documented with an example in the schema. The description confirms the filter is optional and operates on words in the house name, which is mildly additive but doesn't specify matching behavior (substring vs whole word, case sensitivity). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("List the perfume houses in the catalogue") and enumerates what each entry contains, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_house (singular) or search_perfumes, though the plural "list" framing makes the distinction largely inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the browse-all path, with the optional name filter noted. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_house or search_perfumes, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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