Compare two fragrances

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers the main behavioral risks. The description adds value by disclosing what the comparison returns: note pyramids, accords, longevity/sillage/compliment scores, concentration, and price difference.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that fronts the core operation and then lists what the comparison covers. There is no redundant or speculative content.

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 two-parameter, read-only comparison tool, the description is complete enough: it names the output dimensions, and the annotations plus schema cover the safety and input details. There is no output schema, so the explicit field list in the description effectively compensates for that gap.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema as 'slug or name', so schema coverage is 100%. The description confirms that the two inputs are fragrances but does not add any significant parameter-level guidance beyond 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 names a concrete operation with a specific verb and resource: a side-by-side comparison of two fragrances. It also specifies the comparison dimensions, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_fragrance, find_similar, and find_dupes.

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 makes it clear that the tool is appropriate when the user wants to compare exactly two fragrances. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as find_similar for one-to-many or find_dupes for duplication-oriented comparisons.

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