Crystals by Planet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description ('Returns') is consistent. No contradiction exists. The description adds context about filtering and sorting, which is harmless and does not mislead about side effects.

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 uses clear section headers (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and every sentence provides distinct, necessary information (scope, sorting, exclusions, related tools). No fluff or repetition.

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?

Though an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description fully covers what the tool does, its filtering, and its relationship to other tools. This is enough for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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% (both parameters described). The description adds extra value by listing all valid planet values in the INPUT CONTRACT (Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Rahu, Ketu), which is more precise than the schema's example 'Venus' or 'Saturn'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns all crystals associated with a specific Vedic planet.' It further distinguishes itself by clarifying the sorting (Navaratna first, Uparatna substitutes) and exclusions (no Vedic correspondence), which clearly separates it from sibling crystal 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?

Explicit workflow is provided: BEFORE (use natal chart to identify planet) and AFTER (use gemstone recommendations for prescription). The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section names alternatives and explains when each should be used (e.g., gemstone recommendations for actual prescription, not just listing), giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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