Get Crystal Sourcing Guidance

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explicitly stating that it 'never return[s] invented SKUs or stock' and that adjacent categories are advisory only, providing behavioral expectations beyond the 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 at two sentences, front-loading the key purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameters, but overall it is efficient.

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 has 6 parameters (1 required) and zero schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It only addresses the category parameter, leaving the rest unspecified. Although an output schema exists, the input parameter explanations are lacking.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions the 'category' parameter (matching the enum). The other five parameters (channel, packaging, destination, contentAssets, proofRequirements) are left unexplained, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 retrieves 'source-linked procurement checks' for specific categories (bracelets, beads, accessories, raw materials), distinguishing it from sibling tools like crystal_search_products or crystal_get_product. It also clarifies that adjacent categories are advisory only, preventing misuse.

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 for procurement checks on listed categories, and warns against expecting exact SKUs for adjacent categories. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to use this tool over alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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