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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context about what the portrait contains, but says nothing about fuzzy name resolution, ambiguity between houses, or link-language behavior beyond what the schema notes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its returned components come first. It is appropriately short, though the phrase 'when it wears best' is slightly looser than a crisp facet label.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description's remaining job is scope and content preview, which it does. Missing only explicit routing against the many sibling portrait/search tools.

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%: the 'perfume' and 'lang' parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the name-vs-slug formats and the enum of link languages. The description adds no parameter detail, 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?

States the specific resource (one perfume) and enumerates the returned facets (pyramid, Scento family, character, occasions), so the agent knows it is a holistic single-perfume lookup rather than a note- or house-level one. It does not explicitly name siblings like note-portrait or house-portrait to draw the boundary, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as perfume-contrast, scent-neighbours, or note-portrait. The phrase 'when it wears best' describes output content, not invocation context, so the agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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