Find dupes (cheaper smell-alikes)

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about curatorship and price/match output but does not describe result structure, limits, or fallback behavior, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose comes first, and the 'without the price tag' framing adds useful orientation without 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?

For a single-parameter report-only tool, this is mostly complete. It communicates the return theme (dupes with match percentage and price comparison), though an explicit format or example would make it fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 100%: the parameter already states it accepts a fragrance slug or name. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema to carry this dimension.

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 action and resource: finding curated, cheaper smell-alikes for a fragrance. The description clearly separates this from general similar-fragrance lookups by emphasizing documented dupes and price comparison.

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 explicitly maps to the use case: 'what smells like X without the price tag.' It does not formally name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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