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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description is consistent with it. The description adds content/scope but no additional behavioral traits such as output form, pagination, or side effects; with the annotation present, this is adequate though not rich.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero filler: the first enumerates what the tool returns; the second gives the use case. The most actionable guidance is placed at the end but the whole description is short enough to stay front-loaded.

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 simple read-only lookup with one optional enum parameter, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, all necessary invocation context is present. Nothing about auth, pagination, or side effects is needed because the tool is a non-mutating info retrieval.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single optional enum parameter, including a default and per-value descriptions. The tool description provides useful business context but adds no parameter-specific syntax or selection advice beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource (Ada Diamonds company and showroom info) and the content categories returned: contact details, showroom addresses/hours, consultations, and what the company sells. The final sentence explicitly contrasts with product questions, distinguishing it from product-search siblings.

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?

It clearly says to use this for business questions 'rather than about a product,' giving an explicit when/when-not boundary. However, it does not name an alternative tool for product questions, so the routing guidance is still partly implicit.

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