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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return includes a 'current price range', hinting at live/pricing data, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or whether results are cached. With annotations doing the safety work, this is adequate but 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, action, and id provenance. No filler; every clause 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by summarizing the return (details and price range). For a one-parameter read tool, this covers what an agent needs; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 carries the burden for the single `id` parameter. It does this well by naming the id system (Carat Hunter id) and its two valid sources, which the bare integer schema cannot convey.

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 gives a specific verb (retrieve details and current price range) and a precisely scoped resource (one diamond, by Carat Hunter id). It implicitly separates itself from search_diamonds by noting the id originates there, but does not explicitly state the contrasting case.

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?

Usage is implied: call this once you have a Carat Hunter id from search_diamonds or a carathunter.com URL. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance against the other siblings (price_check, lookup_certificate, market_overview).

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