Find similar fragrances

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

Annotations already provide the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explicitly stating that results come from a precomputed similarity ranking over notes and accords, implying the response is not dynamically generated.

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?

A single, dense sentence that fronts the core behavior and follows with only the essential source detail. Every word earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple, read-only tool with complete schema descriptions, the tool's core behavior and data source are adequately described. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit disambiguation against 'find_dupes' and 'get_recommendations', which could matter for tool selection.

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%, so both 'fragrance' and 'limit' are already documented. The description only reinforces that a single source fragrance is the anchor input. It does not add any extra meaning about the limit behavior or expected input format.

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 returns fragrances most similar to a given one, and adds the distinguishing source ('precomputed similarity ranking over notes and accords'). It does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling 'find_dupes', so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 use case is implied: provide a given fragrance and get similar fragrances from a precomputed ranking. There is no direct guidance on when to choose this over siblings like 'find_dupes' or 'get_recommendations', and no explicit exclusion criteria.

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