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

Annotations already cover the safety profile, readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that responses are trimmed, limited to the first page's sections, and include collection fields with one example item plus theme/template metadata. It does not cover errors or pagination, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and return shape, and the usage guidance follows logically. Some phrasing is motivational and slightly repetitive, such as 'not avoiding examples on principle' and 'the goal is never to replicate,' but these sentences still steer agent behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does: first page's sections up to 8, each collection's fields with one example item, and theme/template metadata. Given the tool's reference-gathering role, the description is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret 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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, minimal, categories, and archetypes_category are already documented in the schema. The description alludes to calling 'with that category' and reading the skeleton, but adds little parameter-specific syntax beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Return example fixtures in the shape Sitelas expects.' It also explains exactly what the response contains and contrasts the tool with get_primitive_schema and composing from design principles, so an agent can distinguish reference-gathering from other schema/template tools.

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 states when to use it: on an unfamiliar category, for a correct first call, by reading the skeleton first. It also names the alternative path, get_primitive_schema plus design principles, and warns not to replicate the example content.

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