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 profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that results include note pyramids, accords, community wear scores, and source attribution, which is important because there is no output schema.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope, the second covers filters and output. Every phrase 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?

The description is complete enough for a read-only search tool with strong annotations and 100% schema parameter coverage. It explains the database scope, filters, and return data despite lacking an output schema. Minor gaps remain around result ordering, pagination, and whether a query is required, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 parameters are already documented in ${schema}. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning by mapping 'brand, fragrance family, gender, and MSRP (USD)' to the corresponding fields, but it does not clarify query semantics, limit behavior, or how filters combine.

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 a specific action ('Full-text search'), the exact resource ('13,000+ fragrances in the Perfume Picks database'), and the available filter dimensions (brand, family, gender, MSRP). It also lists the return fields, making it easy for an agent to distinguish this broad search tool from sibling tools like get_fragrance or find_similar.

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 when to use the tool by defining it as a full-text search across the entire fragrance database, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over siblings like find_similar, find_dupes, or get_recommendations. The usage context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but there is no explicit alternative routing or exclusion.

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