search_fragrance

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility and partially fulfills it by disclosing the return type: 'matching fragrances, brands, notes and perfumers with links.' It lacks details on pagination or rate limits, but the read-only nature is implied by 'Search' and 'Returns,' which is sufficient for a simple search tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource immediately, then adds return details. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or 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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers input and output adequately. It tells users what they can search and what they will get, but it could be more complete by explicitly mentioning alternatives to sibling tools or noting any result limits.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, but the description adds meaningful semantics by specifying that the query can match name, brand, note, or perfumer. This goes beyond the schema's terse examples and clarifies the intended search scope.

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's action ('Search') and resource ('the parfica.com fragrance encyclopedia'), and specifies the search criteria (by name, brand, note or perfumer). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fragrance_info (specific fragrance info) and find_dupes (dupe finding) by focusing on cross-entity search.

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 implies when to use it: whenever you need to search across the encyclopedia by various criteria. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity about how it complements fragrance_info or find_dupes.

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