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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is only responsible for add-on context. It supplies two useful traits: results are a *ranked short list* and each entry carries page and checkout links. It does not mention that ranking is a scoring model over measured cut data or any caveats about sparse data.

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?

Two sentences, purpose first, then filters and return shape. The long parenthetical glosses on each priority term are dense but each carries real disambiguating value; only 'sparkle' for scintillation is redundant filler.

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 steps in to say the return is a ranked short list with page and checkout links, which is the key thing an agent needs for follow-up calls. The remaining gap is that it never distinguishes this tool from the near-identical 'best_cuts_for_gemstone' sibling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely adds meaning on top: it glosses 'spread' as 'looks bigger for its weight' and clarifies that 'leakage' ranks least light lost first, which is non-obvious from the bare enum. It adds no semantics for 'limit' or 'shape' beyond the schema, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 and resource ('recommend' a 'cut' for one gemstone) and enumerates the ranking dimensions (brilliance, fire, spread, tilt, leakage), so the agent knows exactly what the tool computes. It does not, however, contrast itself with the very similar sibling 'best_cuts_for_gemstone', leaving the distinction implicit.

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?

'Filter by family or outline' hints at narrowing, and the ranking-priority framing implies use when the buyer has a stated preference. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as best_cuts_for_gemstone or search_cuts, despite seven overlapping siblings.

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