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 fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on data source, coverage limits, or freshness — so it is essentially a restatement of the title's promise.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the payload fields are front-loaded. It is arguably over-terse rather than wasteful, since a fragment with no verb leaves the operation implicit, but every word earns its place.

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 and both parameters are fully documented, so the description need not explain return values. For a low-complexity read tool the only real gap is the absence of sibling routing, which leaves it adequate but not complete.

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%: 'house' is documented with concrete examples and 'lang' explains the enum's effect on links. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema already does this work.

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 (a perfume house) and enumerates exactly what the portrait contains: origin, founding year, style, and signature perfumes. It is clear what data comes back, but it uses a noun phrase with no verb and never contrasts itself with the adjacent portrait tools (perfume-portrait, note-portrait), so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus perfume-portrait, note-portrait, or compendium-search, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent gets a description of the payload but no routing guidance at all.

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