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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only that the tool returns Scento's own family system and that single-family results include subfamilies and exemplars; it does not add further behavioral context such as error handling or response shape.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded around the resource, though its brevity leaves some ambiguity about the exact action and alternatives.

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 simple read-only, idempotent, non-destructive tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools, which is a meaningful gap in context.

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 lang and family parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces the whole-map versus single-family distinction but does not add syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific resource: Scento's fragrance-family system, and clarifies that it can return either the whole map or a single family with subfamilies and exemplars. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as perfumery-lexicon or scent-neighbours, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description implies two modes via the family parameter, but it does not say when to use this tool rather than siblings like perfumery-lexicon or material-match. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisite information.

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