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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive search. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: shared names across concentrations and years, hidden flankers, the risk of silently choosing the wrong variant, and the need to offer users a choice when several matches appear.

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 front-loaded with the core action and urgency, then moves through rationale, result interpretation, and the alternative tool. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection or invocation.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not document return fields in detail. It still explains that results carry concentration and launch year to disambiguate matches, which is exactly the context an agent needs for this ambiguous-search workflow.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds useful query semantics, clarifying that names may be partial or misspelled and that returned slugs are meant to feed subsequent tools; it does not add much on the limit parameter, but the schema covers that adequately.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: resolve a perfume or fragrance name to catalogue entries. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_fragrance by explaining that get_fragrance is for exact slugs, making sibling selection clear.

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?

It states exactly when to call this tool first: when a name is partial, misspelled, or ambiguous. It also names the alternative, get_fragrance, for the exact-slug case and explains the downstream workflow of passing the returned slug to another tool.

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