Crystal Recommendations

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, consistent with the description's 'recommend' operation. The description adds cost (10 credits) and group information, providing additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise (three sentences plus a one-line example), front-loaded with purpose, and every element (group, cost, example) is necessary and earned. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single input parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, input format via example, and cost. However, it does not describe the output structure beyond 'top-N matches with score', which would help completeness.

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 input schema has only a generic 'body' parameter with a description pointing to the tool description. The description compensates by providing an explicit example with fields (sunSign, moonSign, intent, limit), adding essential meaning that the schema lacks.

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 it recommends crystals based on natal sign placements (Sun/Moon/Asc) and intent keywords, returning top matches with scores. The verb 'recommend' and resource 'crystals' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'wellness_crystals' by focusing on natal signs and intent.

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 an example request body and mentions the input format, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It gives clear context but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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