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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scraping engine and output details but does not mention rate limits, idempotency, or any side effects. The tool appears read-only, but no explicit readOnlyHint is provided.

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 a single paragraph with clear front-loading of purpose. It is relatively concise and informative, though could be slightly more structured.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields (gemScore, category, photos, etc.). Parameter count is low and well-covered. The description is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds minimal value by explaining the default minScore of 60 and its relation to 'strong_gem' status, but does not significantly expand beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool discovers undervalued antiques/collectibles/rare items priced ≤30% of estimated market value. It specifies the data source and output fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like alya_gem_appraise.

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 suggests using the tool for arbitrage opportunities or rare finds and mentions filtering by minScore. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or clearly reference alternative tools.

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