fragrance_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned data fields (brand, year, gender, etc.) but does not mention error handling, invalid slug behavior, or any rate limits. For a read-only retrieval tool, the transparency is acceptable but not rich.

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 front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the return fields efficiently. No wasted words 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists all relevant return categories, providing a complete picture of what the tool does. The lack of error behavior is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 describes the slug parameter with 100% coverage, including an example. The description adds only 'by its slug', which is redundant. Since schema coverage is full, baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns a full fragrance profile by slug, listing specific data fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on profile retrieval rather than search or dupes, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets'.

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?

Usage is implied: the slug parameter description notes it comes from search_fragrance, indicating a workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., when not to use find_dupes) or exclusion statements.

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