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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: USD reference output, shape-specific calculator behavior, preservation of table metadata, no invented shape discount, market variability, and explicit non-offer/non-transaction caveats. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but the annotations lower that burden.

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 return value is front-loaded, but the description is longer than needed and includes multiple disclaimer/business-context sentences that do not directly help an agent decide how to invoke the tool. Some statements, such as the service/delivery sentence, are tangential to the tool call.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a reasonable job explaining that it returns a Rapaport TABLE reference in USD and preserves related table metadata. It covers the main limitations and shape behavior, though it leaves usage routing and detailed output semantics somewhat underspecified.

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 only 20%, but the description clarifies important semantics for shape (round vs other named shapes using the Pear table) and origin (natural diamonds). It adds little meaning for carat, color, and clarity beyond their enums, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 specific verb and resource: it returns a Rapaport TABLE reference in USD for a natural diamond. It also clarifies that round uses the Round calculator while other named shapes use the imported Pear table. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools.

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 does not say when to use this tool instead of prepare_selection_request or get_expert_profile. The caveats about it not being an offer or guaranteed discount provide context, but not actionable when-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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