Gemstone Recommendations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by specifying that the tool computes from the natal chart, returns a structured set of categories including contraindications and safety notes, and advises confirming the chart before wearing advice. It does not add details on auth or rate limits, but this is not central for a read-only computation tool.

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 main purpose sentence is front-loaded and is followed by compact, labelled sections for workflow, input contract, and exclusions. Each section adds decision-relevant value, and the docs link is a useful escape hatch rather than bloat.

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 complex tool with an output schema, nested birth object, and safety annotations, the description covers the purpose, the output categories, the necessary workflow, and the alternatives to avoid. There is also a link to the full output and error contract, so an agent can resolve any remaining uncertainty. Nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents birth and response_format. The description only adds 'BirthData follows the global contract', which adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Computes'), names the exact resource ('Ratna-style gemstone picks and cautions from the natal chart'), and enumerates the outputs (primary stones, role-based stones, secondary options, contraindications, safety note). It clearly separates itself from sibling remedy tools in the DO NOT CONFUSE section, making tool selection unambiguous.

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 WORKFLOW section explicitly tells the agent to run asterwise_get_natal_chart BEFORE and asterwise_get_remedies AFTER, and the DO NOT CONFUSE section names alternatives and explains what they are not. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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