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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context: it works in Japanese or English, the corpus is a curated shelf of kits, and it lists the kinds of topics covered. It omits return shape and result-count/pagination behavior, but adds clear value 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the call-to-action follows immediately. The long em-dash list of example domains is somewhat sprawling, but each item illustrates the query space, so little of it is truly wasted.

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 two-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, what corpus it searches, and bilingual query support. It does not describe the return format (kit list, identifiers for get_kit), which is the one remaining gap an agent would benefit from.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the query semantics with concrete example prompts (「スライドを作りたい」etc.) and confirms bilingual input, but adds no syntax or format beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb (Search) and resource (a shelf of ready-made build kits for Claude Code/Codex), and describes the content of the resource (step-by-step recipes with pitfall fixes). It does not explicitly name the siblings get_kit or list_kits, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear trigger — 'Use this whenever the user wants to make or build something' — and states the intent, checking whether a kit already exists before starting from scratch. It stops short of naming alternatives (get_kit/list_kits) or saying when not to use it, so it is solid but not fully routing.

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