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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the tool explains usage (not mutating anything) and is safe to call repeatedly. No contradictions.

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 with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second gives specific usage guidance. Front-loaded and 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 presence of an output schema (not shown but known), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, and doesn't leave major gaps. Could optionally mention that it returns expected parameters, but not required.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics beyond mentioning that prompt_style is a style id from list_available_styles (already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states 'Explain how to use a public prompt_style', which clearly indicates the tool provides usage instructions for a style. The verb 'Explain' is somewhat generic, but the context about using it before create_inference sharpens the purpose. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_inference or list_available_styles.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to 'Use this before create_inference if you are unsure whether a style expects input_image, supports per-inference reference_images, or whether you meant style-level style_reference_images.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies alternatives (e.g., skip if sure). Excellent usage direction.

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