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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that authentication is required ('after auth') and specifies exactly what data is returned (theme tokens, CSS variables export, component overrides). It doesn't cover edge cases like empty responses or error conditions, but for a simple read-only getter, this is transparent enough to be genuinely helpful.

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?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide usage context. Every word contributes to the understanding, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough information to understand when to call it and what it returns. It mentions the specific components of the return value (theme tokens, CSS variables, component overrides) which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. It could be more explicit about possible absence of customization, but it's largely complete for its complexity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds context about what the parameters would imply (the tenant from the auth context) without needing to explain any parameter syntax. No additional parameter documentation is necessary.

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 specific resource (authenticated tenant's customized theme tokens, CSS variables export, and component overrides) and uses a descriptive verb 'Returns'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_design_guidelines or get_design_md, which likely return broader design guidance rather than tenant-specific theme data.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by stating 'Call after auth to apply tenant-specific styling in generated code.' This indicates when to use the tool (after authentication) and its purpose (styling in generated code). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it falls short of a full 5.

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