Get fragrance details

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

The annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description goes further by specifying the exact return contents, which compensates for the missing output schema, and it also discloses that names, not only slugs, are acceptable inputs — a behavior an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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 tight, information-dense sentences front-load the output content before the input format. Every word contributes to operational success; there is no filler, repetition with the schema, or irrelevant formal language.

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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly: what input to supply, what format it accepts, and exactly what fields the returned record will contain. The tool's simple scope means no additional setup, prerequisite, or postcondition disclosure is necessary.

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?

The schema already names the parameter 'slug_or_name' and describes it, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by specifying a 'Perfume Picks slug' and giving the concrete example 'Bleu de Chanel', which clarifies formatting, exact-match expectations, and the acceptable vocabulary for the identifier.

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 specific resource ('detailed record for one fragrance') and enumerates its distinct content (note pyramid, accords, concentration, community scores, MSRP). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like search_fragrances by emphasizing lookup-by-slug-or-name of a single item rather than discovery or 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a specific fragrance slug or name and need the full detailed record. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'one fragrance' framing combined with the accepted inputs implies it is for bounded lookup operations rather than broader exploration.

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