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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered for a pure lookup. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, but for a deterministic dictionary lookup there is little left to disclose; a 3 reflects credit for the fully-covering annotations with no added description value.

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 zero wasted words and the examples placed immediately after the core statement. It is a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, which is slightly less informative than a compact verb-led statement, but nothing is padded.

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, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile; the two-parameter schema is fully self-documenting. What remains missing is only minor usage routing against the eleven siblings, which the description assumes the agent can infer.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the subtle rule that lang controls the language of scento.com links while answers stay in English. The description only repeats example terms already present in the schema's term description, 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 resource (a perfumery term) and what is returned (its plain-language meaning), with concrete examples (sillage, chypre, fougère, EDP vs EDT) that make the tool's domain unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like compendium-search or material-match, but the lexicon-lookup nature is self-evident enough to route correctly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for interpreting terminology, not for searching perfumes or houses. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., use compendium-search for products rather than definitions), so an agent must infer the boundary from sibling names alone.

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