Gem details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by enumerating the returned dimensions (tags, skill types, level 1/20 behavior, Spirit cost, attribute weighting, weapon requirements, support family, recommended supports), which is real added context.

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 dense enumerating sentence plus a short imperative. Front-loaded with the resource, no filler, and every listed field is load-bearing given the absence of an output 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?

For a single-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract and the exact-identifier requirement. It could be more complete by clarifying behavior when the name is ambiguous (e.g., name collides across gem types) or not found.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'Exact gem name, e.g. "Herald of Ash", or gemId'. The description's 'Pass the exact name or gemId' restates the schema rather than adding format resolution rules, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (one skill/spirit/support gem) and enumerates exactly what is returned, which lets an agent distinguish it from a search or list tool. It stops short of naming search_skills or compatible_supports as alternatives, so the boundary against the overlapping 'recommended supports' sibling is left implicit.

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 closing line ('Pass the exact name or gemId') gives invocation guidance, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus search_skills (broad discovery) or compatible_supports (support matching). Usage is implied by the verbosity of the field list rather than stated.

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