Ministry of Gems — Gemmology

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value beyond those: it discloses the curated source (168 verified definitions), the return components (definition, subject section, citable anchor URL), and the authoritative basis. No behavior is hidden or contradicted.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the action and resource, then add the return payload and one illustrative list of example terms. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the name, and all text 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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup tool with an output schema, this description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what will be returned, why the source is trustworthy, and which kinds of inputs to use, while the output schema covers return-value details.

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 only parameter, 'term', has a complete schema description, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description reinforces it with examples but does not add new meaning about formatting, capitalization, or supported values.

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 a specific action ('look up') on a specific resource ('gemmological term in The Gem Lexicon of Ministry of Gems'), and names example terms that ground what it accepts. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as list_gem_terms and search_gem_knowledge by focusing on defined-term lookup with verification and citation details.

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 explicit usage context with examples ('Use for terms such as...'), which helps an agent choose it for dictionary-style lookups. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the alternative sibling tools, but the intended scenario is reasonably clear.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful detail that listed terms are valid targets for definition, but it does not disclose additional behavioral context such as pagination or availability limits. Output schema softens that gap.

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 compact sentences deliver the core behavior, scope, and sibling relationship with no unnecessary detail. The most important usage guidance is placed at the end of the second sentence and remains effective.

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?

This is a simple listing tool with one optional parameter, a complete schema, an output schema, and strong annotations. The description gives enough context for an agent to invoke it appropriately without missing information.

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 coverage is 100% and the section parameter already has a clear description and example. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the schema-heavy baseline 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?

Description states a specific action (list), a specific resource (gemmological terms in The Gem Lexicon), and a scoping option (filter by subject section). It also positions the tool as a discovery precursor to define_gem_term, helping distinguish it from the nearest sibling.

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?

It explicitly tells an agent to use this tool to discover what can be defined before calling define_gem_term, providing a clear when-to-use. However, it does not mention search_gem_knowledge or explain when to choose that sibling instead, leaving a small gap.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: full-text searching across all sections, ranked results, matched passages, and citable deep-linking URLs. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds scope, return format, and citations without wasted words. Every clause 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?

For a two-parameter search tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details: what is searched, how deeply, and what the results look like. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 both query and limit already documented in the input schema. The description does not need to add parameter detail, and it stays at the baseline by not over-explaining what the schema already covers.

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 states a specific verb ('search'), a clear resource (Ministry of Gems gemmological reference library), and precise scope (168 lexicon definitions, 25 handbooks, full text). It also describes the return format, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools.

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 clearly conveys that this is the full-text keyword search tool for the gemmology library, which implies usage for broad research queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from define_gem_term and list_gem_terms.

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