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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the return granularity (summaries, not full bodies), the presence of resource URIs and nextCursor pagination, and the notable absence of a language-model call (cost/latency implication).

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 tightly packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (search axes, return shape, pagination, no-LLM note) carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and the description still covers search scope, summary-vs-body granularity and pagination. What is missing is explicit routing relative to studio_get_skill, the one thing an agent most needs to choose between them.

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 high (80%), so the schema already documents limit, cursor, query, family and medium. The description restates the same matching axes (keyword, medium, family) without adding format or syntax detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (searches) and resource (Brix36 creative skills and style cards) plus the matching axes (keyword, medium, family). It does not name or contrast with the obvious sibling studio_get_skill, so an agent must infer the split between list and get.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Returns summaries rather than full bodies' hints that full detail requires another call (studio_get_skill), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-use, or named alternative is given.

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