Crystal Recommendations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the scoring model, that results are ranked top-N with a score, and the endpoint plus credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which matters for a metered 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?

Two sentences lead with the purpose and result shape, followed by compact structured metadata lines for group, endpoint, and cost. Nothing is padded, though the sign-scoring sentence could be slightly tighter.

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 the description needn't explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is sign-value format and the optionality of all five parameters, which leaves a small gap for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the parameters, and it covers all five conceptually (Sun/Moon/Asc signs, intent, top-N limit). But it gives no format guidance for the sign strings (full name vs abbreviation), no note that every parameter is optional, and no clarification of the limit range, so the compensation is only partial.

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: recommends crystals scored against natal Sun/Moon/Asc placements plus intent keywords, returning top-N matches with score. That is materially clearer than 'get crystals.' It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as astroway_esoteric_crystals_by_zodiac_sign or astroway_wellness_crystals, so an agent must infer the difference from the word 'scored'.

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 implies the usage context (you need natal sign placements and/or an intent), which is more than nothing, but it never says when to prefer this over the by-zodiac, by-chakra, by-purpose, or wellness crystal siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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