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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it searches a "live" catalogue, returns availability and a buy link, and guarantees every loose gem carries a verifiable Digital Gemstone Passport.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core search action and resource before adding details. It contains valuable scoping information (currency, product types, passport guarantee) with little waste, though it is slightly brochure-like.

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 output schema, annotations, and no required parameters, the description supplies enough context for an agent to select and call the tool successfully. It does not need to restate return values, and the filter categories plus examples in the schema complete the picture.

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 only 50% and the description partially compensates by mentioning carat range and price range filters, which map to the undocumented min/max numeric parameters. However, it does not name those parameters or explain the default in_stock_only and limit behavior, so the numerical filter semantics remain somewhat implicit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Search the live Ministry of Gems catalogue," and enumerates loose gemstones and jewellery, availability, prices, and buy links. This clearly distinguishes it from knowledge-base siblings like search_gem_knowledge or gem_properties.

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 makes clear this is the tool for searching current stock and filtering commercial inventory, which strongly implies its use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the highest bar for exclusionary guidance.

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