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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by mentioning the source (FGAA-reviewed) and coverage scope (specific gemstones), which hints at behavior for unsupported stones. No contradiction with 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 core question, then coverage examples. There is no filler, and every phrase adds relevant context.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential scope and source. It could explicitly state what the tool returns for a gem not in the list, but the 'and more' phrase and output schema mitigate that gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It identifies the 'gemstone' parameter as the target and provides concrete examples (sapphire, ruby, diamond, etc.). However, it does not specify exact accepted values, format, or edge cases, so it only partially compensates.

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 identifies the tool's subject (cleaning and wearing gemstones) and its resource (FGAA-reviewed care table), listing specific gems covered. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', but the content is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools such as gem_properties or compare_gems.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gem_properties or search_gem_knowledge. The description only implies its purpose; it does not state situations where it should be preferred or avoided.

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