get_gem_suggestions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output includes gem, planet, metal, mantra, and benefits, and provides mapping examples. It does not mention potential side effects, input validation, or rate limits, but for a read-only recommendation tool, the behavioral disclosure is adequate and additive.

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?

Three sentences: one high-level summary, one list of returned items, and one with mapping examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values. No nested objects, 5 params all required, and schema covers them. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output. Slight deduction for not mentioning whether the tool handles invalid birth data gracefully.

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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions (dob format, tob format, lat/lon examples, tz offset). The schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter details but reinforces the overall purpose. A higher score is not warranted because the description doesn't explain how parameters influence results (e.g., unusual time zones).

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 the tool returns Jyotish gemstone recommendations based on a birth chart, listing included details (gem, ruling planet, metal, mantra, benefits). The verb 'Get' and resource 'gem suggestions' are specific, and the mapping examples (Sun→Ruby) distinguish it from sibling tools like get_kundali_match or get_planet_details.

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 usage when the user wants gemstone recommendations, which is distinct from other astrological tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide comparisons to siblings like check_mangal_dosha or get_moon_sign, missing opportunities to guide selection.

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