get_perfumes_by_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get perfumes by category') and provides essential examples in parentheses. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter with full schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but fails to provide necessary context about behavior, output, or usage guidelines, leaving gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema including its enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the semantics of 'niche' or how categories are defined. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'perfumes', specifying the filtering criteria 'by category' with examples. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_all_perfumes' by indicating category-based filtering, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_perfumes' which might offer broader search capabilities.

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 usage when filtering perfumes by category, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_perfumes' or 'list_all_perfumes'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about optimal use cases.

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