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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: answers are grounded in retrieved verbatim excerpts from official guide/Q&A/subject pages, and citations/links are returned. That tells the agent results are source-backed rather than generated opinion. It omits what happens when nothing is found, whether it is strictly read-only/lookup, and any cost or latency characteristics.

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 front-loaded sentence opens with the core action and scope before the parenthetical examples. The topic list is long but each item genuinely bounds the domain. No filler sentences, though the dense parenthetical is harder to scan than a short bulleted scoping clause would be.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, domain scope, source mechanism, and return format (excerpts plus links) — the important pieces. Gaps remain on the limit parameter, no-result behavior, and authority/freshness of the cited pages, which an agent would need to set expectations for the user.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The topic list gives useful hints about what the 'question' string should contain, but nothing is said about how to phrase it or about language handling beyond 'English questions supported'. The 'limit' parameter (integer, 1–5) is never explained — presumably excerpts returned, but the agent must guess.

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 concrete verb and resource: answering Hetian-jade and Yufu-brand questions by retrieving original excerpts from official site pages with links. The parenthetical topic list (selection, authenticity/certificates, seed vs. mountain material, bracelet sizing, symbolism, pricing, stores/returns) makes and does not exceed scope clear. Differentiation from siblings is only implicit, though — get_brand_facts and get_price_reference overlap with listed topics, and neither is mentioned.

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 topic enumeration implies when to use it (knowledge and brand Q&A), which is adequate context. However, there is no explicit routing instruction against get_brand_facts for brand facts or get_price_reference for market prices, even though the description explicitly claims those territories. No when-not-to-use guidance is given for questions outside jade/brand scope.

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