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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those flags: it emphasizes that results are 'real, in-stock' products from a 'live catalog' and clarifies the tool is not for appraisal or outside pricing. This is useful behavioral scoping, though it doesn't cover pagination or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences carry the full meaning: what the tool searches, what it returns, when to use it, and when not to. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 2-parameter tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent the scope, the return payload essentials (products with prices and links), and the boundaries of appropriate use.

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. The description adds value by giving concrete natural-language examples of how to phrase the query parameter, which helps an agent understand what 'plain words' should look like and what product types are relevant. The limit parameter is already fully documented in the schema, so no repetition is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Stienhardt's live catalog' of diamonds, settings, and fine jewelry. It also states what it returns (real, in-stock products with prices and links), which clearly separates it from siblings like search_encyclopedia and dutch_marquise_definition.

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 explicit usage examples ('do you have a 2 carat Dutch Marquise', 'show me tennis bracelets') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for appraisal or price advice on stones sold elsewhere'). It does not name a specific alternative tool, but it provides enough contextual guidance for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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