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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context by sketching the return shape (roles like daytime/evening/warm weather, each with perfume, house, rationale, and a scento.com link) and the language behavior; it does not discuss limits or failure modes, but little is needed for a safe read tool.

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?

The primary purpose and trigger lead, followed by the return shape, then the exclusions — good front-loading in two sentences. The parenthetical synonym list is slightly dense but earns its place for retrieval matching.

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 four parameters, an output schema present, and rich annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: trigger conditions, synonyms, return structure, and explicit routing to sibling tools. No information gap remains that would cause a wrong call.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema (lang, size 3-5, avoid up to six, loves one to six). The description echoes 'three to five perfumes' and 'perfumes or notes they already love' but adds no syntax or format meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('build a small fragrance wardrobe or collection, three to five perfumes for different moments') and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings occasion-edit and scent-neighbours. An agent can select this tool 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants... or asks what to add next'), lists synonyms to catch alternate phrasings, and states the negative case by naming the two sibling tools to use instead. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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