cut_in_gemstoneHow one cut performs in one gemstone: its headline, eight measured scores against the T73 round brilliant in the same stone, and its pros and cons. For questions like 'is an oval a good cut for sapphire?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cut | Yes | The cut's slug or name. | |
| gemstone | Yes | Gemstone, as its slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return contents: a headline, eight measured scores against the T73 round brilliant, and pros/cons. It stops short of describing output format details or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.
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 two dense, front-loaded sentences that immediately state the resource and its returned content, followed by a clear usage example. No sentence is redundant or wasteful.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining what the tool returns: headline, eight measured scores against the T73 round brilliant, and pros/cons. Combined with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, an agent has enough information to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.
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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description implies the mapping of cut and gemstone via the example 'oval... sapphire' but adds no syntax or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's scope: performance of one cut in one gemstone, including headline, eight measured scores against the T73 round brilliant, and pros/cons. This is specific enough to distinguish the resource from broad siblings like list_gemstones or search_cuts, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with get_cut or get_cut_scores, leaving some ambiguity about overlap.
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 example question 'is an oval a good cut for sapphire?' gives a concrete usage context, making it clear when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_cut_scores or best_cuts_for_gemstone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.