Explain a note or ingredient

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the returned payload (smell, family, natural/synthetic, pairings, example perfumes, localized scento.com page) and the language behavior. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or lookup-miss behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the use case, then the return contents, then the exclusions. Every clause carries information — the example list, the synonym list, and the two sibling redirects all reduce agent ambiguity rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. Combined with the sibling routing and the language note, an agent has everything needed to select and call this 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 both parameters are already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description's example materials and the 'in the user's language' clause loosely reinforce the schema but add no syntax or constraint detail beyond it (e.g. no guidance on ambiguous or multi-word material names).

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 and resource — explaining what a note or raw material smells like or is — with concrete examples (vetiver, oud, ambroxan). It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (material-match, perfumery-lexicon), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('user asks what a note smells like', 'whether it is natural or synthetic', 'what it pairs with'), user-phrasing synonyms, and two named exclusions with the correct alternative for each. This is a complete when/when-not/alternative routing statement.

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