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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results come back in popularity order, are paginated ('a page of perfumes'), and include starting price, stock, rating and product URL. It stops short of stating whether total result counts or empty-result behavior are returned.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the search surface and matching rules come first, the return shape second. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 correctly shoulders the burden of describing the result shape (page, popularity ordering, price, stock, rating, URL). Pagination is only lightly covered — neither total count nor 'more pages available' is disclosed — which is a minor gap for a paged search tool.

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%, so the schema itself documents page, house, query and per_page. The description still adds meaning beyond it by specifying that matching is conjunctive across all words and that accents are ignored, which the schema's 'Words to find' phrasing does not convey.

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 resource (the parfum1 catalogue) plus the exact match surface: perfume name, house or scent family. The AND-semantics ('all words must match') and optional house narrowing make it unmistakably distinct from get_perfume (single-record lookup) and list_houses (enumeration).

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 implied rather than prescribed: the description tells the agent how a query is matched and that a house filter may be applied, but never says when to prefer get_perfume or list_houses instead. The catalogue-listing behavior (empty query) is only in the schema, not the description, so routing to siblings is left to inference.

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