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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds useful scope context by enumerating the record's contents, but does not go beyond that with auth needs, rate limits, or failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the slug is unknown).

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 that leads with the return payload and follows with acceptable inputs. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with a rich return payload, the description is nearly complete: it scopes the resource and enumerates the record contents. It lacks only explicit when-to-use-vs-siblings guidance and failure-mode documentation, which are minor for such a straightforward 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter 'slug_or_name' is already documented in the schema. The description does add a concrete example ('Bleu de Chanel') and clarifies the two accepted formats, which marginally exceeds the schema's terse 'Fragrance slug or name', but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (get) and resource (fragrance) and enumerates the payload returned: note pyramid, accords, concentration, community scores, MSRP. This crisply distinguishes it from siblings like search_fragrances and compare_fragrances, which operate on sets rather than fetching one record.

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 implies a single-record lookup and even explains accepted input forms (slug or name like 'Bleu de Chanel'), which helps callers know what to feed it. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus alternatives such as search_fragrances for discovery or compare_fragrances for side-by-side comparisons, so the agent must infer the routing.

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