Search perfumes, houses and notes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: results include house, Scento family and a scento.com link, ten items per page, and pagination is continued via the continuation token. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, keeping 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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then result shape, then the disambiguation rule, then exclusions. Dense and largely waste-free, though the parenthetical synonym list is long and slightly crowds the opening sentence.

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 detailed, yet the description still summarizes result composition, page size and pagination. Combined with full schema coverage and clear routing to alternatives, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 schema already documents q, kind, lang and continuation, including examples and enum meanings. The description reinforces the q scope ('name is uncertain', synonyms) and the language behavior, but adds little syntax or format beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search/find) and resource (perfumes, houses, notes/materials) and enumerates the trigger inputs: name, house, note, or mood. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like perfume-portrait or journal-search.

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 when-to-use ('user asks to find a perfume... by name, house, note or mood'), an explicit disambiguation rule ('Call this first when a name is ambiguous'), and explicit when-not with named alternatives (perfume-portrait, scent-neighbours, journal-search). Nothing is left to inference.

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