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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it searches 13,000+ records and returns note pyramids, accords, and community wear scores with source attribution. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or default behavior.

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 deliver the core purpose, the available filters, and the return contents with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded and every sentence 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 search tool with seven fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, filters, and return content. Minor gaps like result ordering and default limit behavior are already addressed in the schema, so the description is largely complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists filter dimensions already present in the schema (brand, family, gender, MSRP) but adds no extra meaning about query semantics, defaults, or filters beyond what the input schema provides.

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 verb and resource: full-text search across the Perfume Picks fragrance database. The filter list and mention of returned note pyramids, accords, and wear scores clearly distinguish it from siblings 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 use case is implied by 'full-text search' and the filter dimensions, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as find_similar or get_recommendations. There are no named alternatives or exclusions.

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