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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context by describing the return contents: page, facets, size, price, and checkout links. It also explains that the gemstone parameter changes scoring and sorting behavior, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core search action, followed by return-value context and then the gemstone-specific behavior. It is compact, uses useful examples, and has no apparent 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?

For a seven-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and a clear read-only annotation profile, the description is largely complete. It explains what matches contain and how the gemstone parameter affects results, though it could do more to position the tool against its siblings.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters well. The description adds meaningful semantics not fully captured by the schema, especially that providing a gemstone evaluates and sorts cuts by brilliance, fire, and scintillation in that specific stone.

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: search gem cuts and Platonic solids. It adds concrete query examples such as 'square step cut' and 'historic cushion', making the scope clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like best_cuts_for_gemstone or get_cut.

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 description implies when to use the tool through examples and through the gemstone clause, which explains that supplying a gemstone adds brilliance, fire, and scintillation scoring. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over best_cuts_for_gemstone, list_gemstones, or get_cut.

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