The published definition of the Dutch Marquise cut

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns a definition, specifies the contents (geometry, certificate wording, measured ratio), and includes an example definition. It doesn't explicitly state the return format, but for a static zero-parameter reference this is adequate.

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 tight sentences. The first fronts loads the output contents in a colon list; the second supplies the actual definition. No redundant phrases or filler.

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, parameterless informational tool, the description fully conveys what the agent will get and gives a concrete definition. No output schema exists, but the description supplies the necessary return-value context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond the tool's content; basel ine 4 applies. The description adds context about what the returned definition covers.

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 resource (published definition of Dutch Marquise cut) and enumerates its contents: geometry, certificate wording, and measured length-to-width ratio. It is more specific than generic sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit action verb and doesn't name a differentiating sibling.

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?

When to use the tool is implied by its specific subject matter and the word 'published' vs the generic 'define' and 'search_encyclopedia' siblings. However, it never explicitly says to prefer this over those alternatives, so the guidance is left to inference.

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