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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, it reveals call-ordering requirements, the empty-parameter behavior (list + default to ask the customer), the provided-parameter behavior (style formula), and that the data is reference-only and should not replace customer input. No contradiction with 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?

Four short, high-signal sentences with the most important instruction ('must call before UI') front-loaded. Every sentence carries operational value and there is no filler or repetition of schema data.

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 simple read-only suggestion tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers when to call, what each mode returns, and how to treat the data. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents phong_cach. The description adds behavioral meaning for omitting vs providing the value, reinforcing that the id comes from the list and that empty means 'show list'. This is useful added context, though the extra term 'camMacDinh' is slightly unexplained.

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's role: a design/presentation-style suggestion that must be called before writing a UI. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by tying invocation to interface work and explaining the two modes (empty list vs style formula).

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 call it before writing any UI and explains the consequence of skipping it ('page like every AI...'). It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the timing and conditional parameter behavior are clear.

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