Crystal Lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the tool's safety profile. The description does not contradict these annotations and adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, so a neutral score is appropriate.

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 well-structured with clear sections for workflow, input contract, and confusion avoidance. It is a bit verbose but remains organized and easy to follow. The length is justified by the additional clarifying information.

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?

The description omits any explanation of the 'response_format' parameter, which is present in the schema. Additionally, the schema description for 'name' is incorrect and does not match the purpose or the INPUT CONTRACT. These gaps hinder an agent from fully understanding the tool's inputs and usage 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?

The schema description for the 'name' parameter is completely mismatched: it says 'Person's full name as commonly written; letters are converted to numerology values', which contradicts the tool's purpose of looking up a crystal. Although the description text's INPUT CONTRACT correctly states 'crystal slug or display name', the schema description itself is misleading and would cause an agent to misuse the parameter.

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 looks up a specific crystal by slug or name and returns full details including planetary assignments, healing properties, and safety cautions. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools via the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, listing alternative crystal-related tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives by listing asterwise_get_crystals, asterwise_get_crystal_by_planet, and asterwise_get_gemstone_recommendations as distinct options. It also mentions that this tool can be used standalone or after another tool, giving contextual usage direction.

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