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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the ranking formula (brilliance + fire + scintillation summed) and the fact that optical constants are returned alongside the lists, which tells the agent how results are ordered.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the core output (top ten of each kind) is front-loaded ahead of the ranking criteria. Minor awkwardness in 'in one gemstone', but nothing is wasted.

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 only two fully-enumerated parameters and no output schema, the description does the right extra work: it says what comes back (two ranked top-ten lists plus optical constants) and how ranking is computed. A brief note on tie-breaking or list length variability would close the remaining gap.

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 100% and both parameters carry enum value descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase 'one gemstone' and its mention of brilliants and jewelry cuts loosely mirrors the `kind` enum but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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+resource: returns the top ten brilliants and top ten jewelry cuts for a gemstone, ranked by a defined composite metric. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_cut_scores and search_cuts by being a pre-ranked 'best of' list, but it never names a sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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 when you want a curated top-ten ranking rather than raw per-cut scores — but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_cut_scores or search_cuts, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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