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 real context beyond them: the exact return payload (title, one-line summary, scento.com link), the localization behavior (links in the user's language, answers in English), and the reader-facing intent. It does not mention pagination, which is the one behavioral gap.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then return shape, then exclusions. Every clause carries load — the examples, the output fields and the sibling routing all serve selection or invocation.

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 3-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: trigger, exclusions, sibling routing and localization behavior. Return values are already covered by the output schema, so nothing material 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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents q, lang and continuation thoroughly. The description reinforces the localization nuance ('in the user's language') but adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so it earns no more than baseline.

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 ('search the Scento journal'), names the artifact returned (articles with title, one-line summary and link), and explicitly contrasts itself with three siblings. An agent can distinguish it from perfume-portrait, house-portrait and perfumery-lexicon 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 an explicit when-to-use trigger ('user wants articles, guides or background reading on a perfume, fragrance, cologne, house, note or topic') with concrete examples, plus explicit when-not-to-use routing to three named alternatives. 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.