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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the result set (top three crystals) and its fields (chakra, element, placement) in the absence of an output schema, though it says nothing about input validation or partial-questionnaire behavior.

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?

Two clauses, front-loaded with the action and then the output, with no filler. The single-sentence density is efficient, though splitting the input and output halves would read marginally cleaner.

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 no output schema and five optional parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the top-three shape and result attributes. It stops short of explaining what happens with zero answers or how results are ranked, minor gaps for a read-only recommendation 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 coverage is 100% with rich enum descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by translating the five parameters into user-facing questionnaire dimensions (life focus, challenge, chakra, placement, style), which bridges the vocabulary gap for an agent populating an all-optional intent form.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("match crystals to an intention") and enumerates the questionnaire dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like check_my_chakras or find_healing_frequency, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by "using a short questionnaire" and the intention-matching framing, so an agent can infer this is the tool for crystal recommendations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many spiritual-guidance siblings.

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