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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are a curated set, each with a match percentage and price comparison, which tells the agent what kind of data to expect. It does not cover coverage limits (how many dupes, curation criteria), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first defines the resource and payload, the second delivers the usage trigger. Front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape (dupes, match percentage, price comparison) and does so. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'fragrance' parameter is fully documented as a slug or name. The description adds no format or matching guidance beyond what the schema already supplies, 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 a specific verb+resource ('dupes for a fragrance') and describes the payload — cheaper smell-alikes with match percentage and price comparison. It implicitly distinguishes itself from find_similar by emphasizing 'cheaper' and 'documented to smell like', but never names the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives an explicit user-intent trigger: "Use for 'what smells like X but costs less' questions." That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not guidance and no pointer to find_similar or compare_fragrances for the adjacent cases.

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