Crystals by Chakra

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds two useful behavioural facts the annotations don't: the HTTP endpoint and the warning that cost is not in the public credit manifest. It says nothing about response shape, result size, or what happens on an unrecognized chakra value, leaving gaps for a lookup 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?

One front-loaded sentence carries the purpose and the valid domains, followed by a compact metadata block with group, endpoint, required param, and cost caveat. No filler; the only mild redundancy is repeating the required parameter already enforced by the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and there is only one parameter. With the domain list, endpoint, and cost caveat present, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; the remaining ambiguity about exact value casing is the only shortfall.

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% and the schema already says 'Chakra name, lowercase'. The description adds the useful list of valid chakra names, but it presents them capitalized ('Solar Plexus', 'Third Eye') while the schema demands lowercase, and it never gives the exact slug form (space vs underscore), so the single risky input detail remains ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Crystals indexed for a given chakra') and enumerates the seven chakra domains, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near siblings like astroway_esoteric_crystals, astroway_esoteric_crystals_by_purpose_purpose, or astroway_esoteric_crystals_by_zodiac_sign, so the differentiation rests mostly on the tool name.

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 chakra enumeration implies when the tool applies (the user asks for crystals tied to a specific chakra), but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no routing to the by-purpose, by-zodiac, or recommend siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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