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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the answer is descriptive rather than operational, and says nothing about response shape, limits, or lookup failure behavior, so no extra credit is earned beyond the annotation baseline.

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 compact sentence with no filler and the key concept (note/raw material) front-loaded. It is well sized, though it reads as a content summary rather than a directive statement of what the tool does.

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, so return values need not be described, and annotations fully cover the safety profile while the schema documents both parameters. The only real shortfall is the absence of routing guidance relative to sibling tools, which is handled elsewhere.

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%, with the material parameter carrying examples (vetiver, orris, ambroxan, pink pepper) and the lang enum documented with its default. The description's phrase 'a note or raw material' merely echoes 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 names a specific resource (a note or raw material) and enumerates the content it returns: identity, origin, and skin behavior. It clearly differs from generic search tools, but as a noun-phrase fragment it never states the verb and doesn't distinguish itself from near-siblings like material-match or perfume-portrait.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though the sibling list contains directly adjacent tools (material-match, perfume-portrait, house-portrait) that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer the routing decision entirely.

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