search_fragrances

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral constraint that at least one filter is required, and it clarifies the pagination mechanism via cursor. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every clause earns its place. It states the core action, the pagination feature, a required precondition, and the alternative tool without any padding.

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?

Considering the 7 parameters are fully detailed in the schema and annotations cover safety traits, the description completes the picture by explaining filter requirements, pagination style, and the differentiation from 'search'. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

While the schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, the description adds meaningful grouping: it identifies which parameters act as filters (q, brand, note, family, price_range) and implies that limit and cursor are pagination controls. It also imposes a business rule (at least one filter) not present in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool filters fragrances and uses cursor pagination, with a specific verb ('Filter') and resource ('fragrances'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search' tool by contrasting 'open keyword lookups' with filtered queries.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: this tool is for filtered fragrance searches (requiring at least one filter), while the 'search' tool is for open keyword lookups. This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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