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

The description adds beyond annotations by stating it never invents price, MOQ, stock, lead time, or certificates. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, providing clear behavioral boundaries.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no redundant information. 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 tool with 13 optional parameters, an output schema is present, but the description lacks guidance on how each parameter affects the drafted inquiry. The agent can infer basic usage but may struggle with optional details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'bracelet SKUs', leaving the other 12 parameters (name, email, channel, etc.) unexplained. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the lack of detail hampers correct invocation.

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 tool validates bracelet SKUs and drafts an English wholesale inquiry. It uses specific verbs ('validate', 'draft') and distinguishes the tool from siblings like crystal_search_products and crystal_build_procurement_shortlist.

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 explicitly says the tool is read-only and never sends or stores data, guiding the agent on safe usage. However, it does not mention explicit alternatives or when not to use it, though sibling tools are listed separately.

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