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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it spells out what interpretive data the tool returns (spiritual, emotional, physical, chakra, zodiac, elemental, pairings) and asserts authoritative coverage. It does not cover error handling or invalid-ID behavior, but that is not critical for a read-only fetch.

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 action and resource, then expands with relevant return categories and source authority. The list of healing interpretation domains is informative rather than filler. It is slightly densive but each sentence earns its place.

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 simple GET-by-ID operation, the schema fully explains params, annotations verify safety, and the description communicates the return domains and authoritative nature. No output schema exists, so the description does enough to convey what callers get. Missing error/not-found semantics is a minor gap for this tool.

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%, and the schema documents id case-insensitivity, lang fallback, and compact shape with token savings. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource: complete healing properties and metaphysical data for a specific crystal by ID. It distinguishes this tool from sibling list/search tools by explicitly targeting one identifier-bearing crystal, and the 'Returns' list details the domains covered.

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 usage for a known, specific crystal or gemstone via its ID, which gives clear context. It does not explicitly say when not to use alternatives or name sibling tools, but the 'specific crystal' framing is enough for an agent to route a single-ID lookup here.

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