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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavior: it discloses that answers stay in English while the scento.com page and labels follow the lang parameter, and that notes are "verified" — context an agent cannot get from the annotations alone. It stops short of describing pagination or failure behavior when the perfume is ambiguous.

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 trigger condition, then returns, then exclusions — a sensible ordering. The middle clause is a long enumeration of attributes and synonyms that borders on padding, but each item maps to a real user asking pattern rather than repeating structured fields.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return shapes, yet it still summarises them usefully. Trigger, localization behavior, and sibling disambiguation are all present; nothing an agent needs to call 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 fully documented in the schema itself, making 3 the baseline. The description confirms the lang effect ("page in the user's language") and the free-form name-or-slug input, but adds no syntax, disambiguation or matching-behavior detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 (retrieve a perfume's notes and profile) and enumerates the exact attributes covered: notes/pyramid, family, perfumer, year, concentration, occasion. It explicitly names the three siblings it is not and the condition distinguishing each, so an agent can route 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 explicit when-to-use triggers phrased as user utterances ("what does X smell like", synonym list) and explicit when-not-to-use cases mapped to named alternatives: scent-neighbours for similar, perfume-contrast for comparison, perfume-search for mood. 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.