divine_get_gemstone_suggestion

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating that recommendations are based on planetary positions and include primary/alternative stones and wearing instructions, but it discloses no further behavioral caveats. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first line and return-value details in the second. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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?

Given the rich self-documenting input schema, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance among the many sibling divine_get_ tools, but the core invocation needs are covered.

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 description only broadly gestures at the input ('birth chart', 'planetary positions') and does not explain the params object or its required fields. The nested KundliInput schema compensates with detailed per-field descriptions and examples, so the agent can still invoke the tool correctly without parameter detail in the description.

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 identifies the operation (get gemstone recommendations), the resource (gemstone suggestions), the input basis (birth chart/planetary positions), and the main output categories (primary gemstone, alternatives, wearing instructions). It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with nearby remedy tools like divine_get_rudraksha_suggestion.

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 intended trigger is evident: use this tool when a user wants gemstone recommendations derived from a birth chart. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternatives, so the selection guidance is more implicit than explicit.

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