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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: results carry concentration and launch year so variants can be distinguished, multiple matches are possible due to shared names, and the agent should offer the user a choice when several match. It also warns about the consequence of guessing the wrong variant, giving the agent critical behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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 four sentences long, yet every sentence carries operational weight: purpose, when to call, why ambiguity matters, what results contain, and the alternative. It is front-loaded with the core directive and uses the rest to justify the usage without fluff.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and rich schema/annotations, the description is complete: it explains preconditions, expected results, how to handle multiple matches, and when to delegate to a sibling tool. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description enriches the 'query' parameter by clarifying it accepts partial or misspelled names and that ambiguity is expected. This adds meaning beyond the schema's 'Name or partial name to look up', though it does not add anything significant about the 'limit' parameter.

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 opens with 'Resolve a fragrance name to catalogue entries', a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from get_fragrance by explicitly explaining when each should be used, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does relative to its siblings.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST whenever a name is partial, misspelled, or could mean more than one product'. It also provides an exclusion: 'Use get_fragrance instead when you already hold an exact slug', which directly addresses the alternative tool and the condition that selects it.

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