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 valuable return-content detail (prices, checkout links, Q&A, page) that annotations cannot convey, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown cut slug.

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 long sentence that is front-loaded with 'Everything about one cut' and then enumerates contents compactly. It is list-heavy but each clause maps to a real returned field, so there is minimal waste.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so comprehensively. The remaining gap is the optional gemstone behavior and error/not-found handling, which are left implicit.

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 already documented and the baseline is a 3. The description hints at 'all seven gemstones' but never explains that the optional gemstone parameter narrows the response to pros/cons for that one stone, so it adds little 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?

States a specific verb-resource pair implied by 'Everything about one cut' and enumerates the resource's contents (specs, brilliance/fire/scintillation scores, products, Q&A, page). It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like get_cut_scores or cut_in_gemstone, which overlap on the scoring content.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the single-cut lookup keyed by slug/name. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_cut_scores or cut_in_gemstone, and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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