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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about the content being a published definition tied to a certified reference stone, but does not add further behavioral traits like rate limits or data-source caveats. No contradiction exists.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence names the resource and its components, and the second clarifies the shape. Information is front-loaded and every word 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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool, the description gives the essential information an agent needs: what the definition contains and the key characteristic of the stone. There is no output schema, but the listed content areas are sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description does not need to compensate for any schema documentation gaps, and the 100% schema coverage for zero parameters makes this dimension a non-issue.

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 exactly what the tool provides: the published definition of the Dutch Marquise cut, including geometry, certificate wording, and measured length-to-width ratio. It also adds a clarifying one-sentence definition of the cut itself. This clearly distinguishes it from general definition tools like 'define' and from inventory/price search siblings.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'define' or 'search_encyclopedia'. It implies the use case (looking up the Dutch Marquise definition) but does not state conditions, exclusions, or mention any sibling tool.

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