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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the source is Scento's own proprietary taxonomy (not a generic standard), and it discloses the payload shape — definition, subfamilies, exemplars, neighbouring families, and the scento.com guide. It doesn't discuss pagination or edge cases like an unknown family name, which keeps it 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?

Front-loaded with the primary trigger and concrete examples before the return-value detail, which is the right ordering. The synonym parenthetical and the long return sentence are dense but each earns its place; only the synonym list is slightly redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. With only two fully documented optional parameters and explicit sibling routing, nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the enum for lang and the 'leave empty for the whole map' default behavior for family. The description restates the family-name examples but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific resource (Scento's own fragrance family system) and precisely what it returns: the whole tree, or one family with definition, subfamilies, exemplar perfumes and neighbouring families. It also names boundary cases (single-perfume family, term, occasion) so the agent can tell it apart from perfume-portrait, perfumery-lexicon and occasion-edit.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('when the user asks how fragrances are grouped or what a scent family is') plus concrete examples (woody, floral, amber, fresh, citrus) and a second trigger for exemplars of one family. It closes with explicit when-not-to-use routing to three named siblings.

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