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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact content returned (including the Digital Gemstone Passport link and checkout link), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict the outcome without needing to inspect the output schema.

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 two sentences: the first packs all relevant return fields into a single list, and the second gives a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. The information is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 is a simple read-only detail endpoint with an output schema and one clear parameter. The description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when it should be used. No additional edge cases or prerequisites are necessary for an agent to call 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?

There is only one parameter ('handle') and the schema description already explains it accepts a handle or full URL. The tool description repeats this but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra parameter semantics are needed.

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 clear verb-resource action ('Full detail for one Ministry of Gems product') and enumerates the exact fields returned (specifications, description, price, availability, variants, images, passport link, checkout link). It also distinguishes itself from sibling search_gem_inventory by noting it is a follow-up step, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 instructs 'Use after search_gem_inventory,' which tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool. Though it doesn't list when not to use it, the directive is sufficient for a single-purpose detail fetcher, and the relationship to its predecessor is clear.

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