Search the Perfume Picks catalog

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

The annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the catalog size, filterable dimensions, and return content (note pyramids, accords, community wear scores, source attribution), but it does not disclose deeper behavior like matching semantics or edge cases.

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 compact two-sentence structure: an action-oriented opening followed by filter detail and return-value detail. Every sentence adds information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given 7 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides meaningful context about scope and result content. It is missing some explicit guidance on query behavior when no filters are provided, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke this search tool.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, and schema coverage is 100%. The description briefly restates common filters like brand, fragrance_family, gender, and MSRP, but it neither conflicts with the schema nor adds meaning beyond it, so the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with 'Full-text search across 13,000+ fragrances in the Perfume Picks database', naming the exact verb, resource, and scope. It also lists filters and return fields, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_fragrance or find_similar.

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 says this is for full-text search with filters, which implicitly identifies a general search use case. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternative sibling tools such as find_similar or get_recommendations, leaving some selection burden on the agent.

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