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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the exact payload shape returned and the subtle language behavior (links/labels localized while answers stay in English). It doesn't discuss limits on ambiguous multi-house names beyond the search fallback, so it stops short of 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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: trigger, return shape, exclusions plus fallback. The trigger is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of the tool title.

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 elaboration, and the description still sketches them. Combined with the routing guidance for siblings and the uncertain-name fallback, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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% and the lang parameter's schema text already explains the links-vs-answers language split, so the description's mention of "the user's language" largely restates structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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+resource (profile a perfume house/brand/maison) and enumerates the returned fields: country, founding year, style, signature perfumes with families, and the scento.com house page. It explicitly distinguishes itself from perfume-portrait and material-match, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Gives the triggering condition (user asks about a house/brand/maison), two explicit exclusions with the named alternatives (perfume-portrait for one perfume, material-match for listing perfumes by note), and a recovery path when the house name is uncertain (perfume-search with kind "house"). Nothing 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.