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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent nature. The description adds transparency about result contents (certificate details, measurements, image/video links) and the pairing behavior with ring settings, which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them. However, it does not detail any rate limits or error behavior, but that's acceptable given the 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?

The description is composed of three concise sentences, each adding distinct information: the search function, the results details, and the on-site pairing. No redundant or vague language. It is well-structured and easily digestible.

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 complex tool with 15 parameters, the description provides a solid overview of purpose and return contents. It does not explicitly explain pagination or range filtering, but given the schema descriptions for many parameters and the tool's focused nature, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly in most cases.

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?

The description mentions the primary filter attributes (shape, carat, color, clarity, cut, price) but does not elaborate on the range parameters (e.g., carat_min/max, price_min/max) or pagination (page, limit). The schema descriptions cover 60% of parameters, but the tool description adds little beyond that, and missing descriptions for some parameters remain ambiguous.

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 specifies the tool's function: searching for lab-grown diamonds with specific attributes (shape, carat, color, etc.) from 25karats, including certifications, in-stock status, and purpose (engagement rings). This is a distinct and precise purpose that differentiates it from siblings like search_products or browse_collection.

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 the tool is for diamond-specific searches, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over general alternatives like search_products. However, the specialization is clear enough (only diamonds, with engagement ring context), so usage is reasonably well implied.

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