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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns ranked results with matched passages and citable URLs, and specifies full-text search across every section. This goes beyond the annotation declarations without contradicting them.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then adds scope and return details. No extraneous words, but it is slightly long. Still, every part 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?

The description covers what is searched, what is returned (ranked results, passages, URLs), and the scope of the search. An output schema exists to detail result fields, so the description doesn't need to explain return structure. It is complete for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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% for both parameters (query and limit), so the schema already documents their purpose. The description does not add parameter-specific details like query syntax or formatting, so it provides no value beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'Ministry of Gems gemmological reference library', specifying contents (215 lexicon definitions, 25 handbooks) and full-text scope. It distinguishes from siblings like search_gem_inventory (product search) and define_gem_term (specific definition lookup) by focusing on full-text search across reference material.

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 implies when to use it (searching the reference library) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to alternatives. Sibling names like search_gem_inventory suggest different use cases, but the description doesn't articulate these boundaries.

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