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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the useful behavioral fact that the result is a rich descriptive profile rather than a list or an action. It doesn't say what happens when the style doesn't exist or that the 'space' argument selects a different catalog (exterior/landscaping).

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, front-loaded with the resource and payload, followed by concrete usage triggers. No filler and nothing repeated.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the returned fields, which is the key omission filled. It is short of complete because the non-interior catalogs (exterior, landscaping) and unknown-style behavior go unmentioned.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the enum for 'space' and an example value for 'style'. The description's example ('what is Japandi?') restates what the schema already shows, adding no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 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?

"Details for one House AI design style" names the resource and enumerates the specific payload (color palette, materials, furniture, textiles, lighting, decor, avoid-list), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. The verb is implicit rather than stated, and the closest sibling (search_design_styles) is never named, so differentiation must be inferred from "one".

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?

Two concrete use cases are given: explaining a style and planning a room makeover before redesigning, which also ties it to the redesign_room sibling. What's missing is the counterpart guidance – that style names should be discovered via search_design_styles, or what to do when the style name is unknown.

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