Ministry of Gems — Gemmology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds value by specifying what the tool returns (definition, subject section, citable anchor URL) and notes that definitions are verified by an FGAA-qualified gemmologist, which is behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise: two sentences that state purpose, source, output, and usage examples. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, where it sources data, what it returns, and gives examples of acceptable terms. The mention of 168 verified definitions adds context about the scope and reliability, making this a well-rounded description.

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 covers the single parameter 'term' with a clear description. The description adds value by providing example valid terms, which helps the agent understand the expected input format and scope. This goes beyond the schema definition, so a 4 is warranted.

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 purpose: 'Look up a gemmological term' in 'The Gem Lexicon of Ministry of Gems'. It specifies the resource, the action, and the output (definition, subject section, citable anchor URL), distinguishing it from siblings like list_gem_terms and search_gem_knowledge.

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 provides clear usage context by listing example terms ('padparadscha, corundum, parti sapphire, unheated, asterism'), which implies it is for specific term lookup. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with sibling tools, making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety traits. The description adds the optional section filter and discovery purpose, but does not describe return format or pagination beyond what structured data indicates. Consistent with a list tool that relies heavily on annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb, no redundant words. It efficiently combines the operation, resource, optional filter, and usage context in a compact structure.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, full annotations, and an output schema. The description clearly covers purpose and usage, and the output schema handles return values. No additional context is needed for correct selection and invocation.

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 describes the 'section' parameter with an example ('Treatments & Enhancement'), and the description only echoes 'optionally filtered to one subject section.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'The Gem Lexicon', with optional filtering by section. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by noting it is for discovering terms before calling define_gem_term.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover what can be defined before calling define_gem_term.' This provides clear context and a pointer to the alternative, making the usage scenario unambiguous.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that results are ranked and include citable URLs, and it quantifies the library size, providing value beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that is efficiently front-loaded with the main operation ('Keyword search'), then supplies relevant scope and result details. No redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with full schema documentation, an output schema, and a clear description of its scope and result format, the description is sufficiently complete. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not required in the description.

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 tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, meeting the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool performs keyword search across a defined reference library, with specific counts of lexicon definitions and buyer's handbooks. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools define_gem_term and list_gem_terms, which focus on definition and listing rather than 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 conveys a clear usage context: searching the Ministry of Gems library. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the nature of the tool (keyword search) and the sibling names make the intended use case virtually unambiguous. Slight deduction for lacking an explicit 'use this when...' statement.

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