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

Annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, and not destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context that results come from a precomputed similarity ranking, but it does not describe return shape, pagination, or edge cases such as unknown fragrance slugs.

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?

One sentence conveys the core behavior and the ranking basis without filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes no redundant details.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks only explicit alternative routing and a hint about the return value shape, which are minor for this simple tool.

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?

The input schema documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The phrase 'given one' matches the fragrance parameter, but the schema already defines slug/name and limit defaults.

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 that the tool returns fragrances most similar to a given fragrance, using a precomputed similarity ranking over notes and accords. This clearly identifies the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly call out sibling distinctions such as find_dupes or get_recommendations.

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: given a fragrance, find similar ones based on precomputed notes/accords similarity. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over find_dupes, get_recommendations, or search_fragrances, and no exclusions are stated.

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