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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the { results, note? } return shape, the meaning of selfPersisting, the fact that apply_blueprint_widgets auto-provisions the blueprint's own tables, the 'NEVER create a table for a covered feature' constraint, and that applied widgets stack on top of rather than replace the current build.

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?

Front-loaded with the core 'what' and the RUN THIS FIRST directive, and every sentence carries actionable information. It is dense and long with heavy capitalization emphasis, which slightly hurts scanability, but there is little pure filler.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the ranking semantics, the follow-up action (apply_blueprint_widgets) and its provisioning side effects, and the fallback when no match is found. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or act on the result is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains slot/surface as result narrowers and limit as a cap with default 10, but omits the `kind` enum (widget-set/fbb/whole-flow/any) entirely and gives no guidance on the enum values for slot/surface. Query semantics are only implied by the plain-language matching example, so compensation is partial.

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+resource (semantic search over the blueprint catalog) and explains the ranking mechanism (meaning, not shared words) with a concrete example. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling flow_list_blueprints ('Prefer this over list_blueprints when you know what you need'), so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('RUN THIS FIRST — before creating custom tables or hand-rolling a capability'), when-not ('Low match scores across the board mean no vetted blueprint fits — only then build that piece from scratch'), and the alternative (list_blueprints). It even prescribes the query strategy: one search per distinct feature rather than a single broad query.

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