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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, so the description need not restate safety. It adds meaning by disclosing that the result is summary data, not the complete healing profile, and by saying all seven chakras are supported. This helps the agent set correct expectations about output richness without contradicting 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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and compresses the important alternative endpoint into one sentence. The final use-case sentence is somewhat auxiliary but not bloated; overall every part adds some orientation for the agent.

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 read-only annotations, fully documented parameters, and a clear statement about summary data, the tool is adequately specified for correct invocation. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit summary-vs-detail distinction and the reference to the detail endpoint, though exact return fields remain unspecified.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, defaults, enums, and constraints, so the description does not need to add param-level detail. It contributes only lightly by enumerating the supported chakras, which is already in 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a precise resource: healing crystals and gemstones that resonate with a specific chakra. It clearly separates this tool from sibling filtering tools by naming the chakra dimension, and notes it returns summary data rather than full details.

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?

It explicitly directs agents to use the /crystals/{id} detail endpoint when full healing properties are needed, establishing a clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use boundary. It also identifies relevant use cases like crystal grid building and chakra balancing, giving the agent practical context for when to choose this tool.

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