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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: filters combine with AND semantics, non-matching folders get returned wholesale, and blind selection forces a try-and-replace cycle. It does not describe result shape or pagination, which keeps this below a 5.

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 exclusion ('Not needed to start a new site'), then purpose, then the AND warning — a sensible order with no filler sentences. Slightly rhetorical phrasing ('849 coin flips') costs a little density.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description should say what comes back (layout identifiers, whether thumbnails/code are included) and what valid `kind` values look like. It covers filtering behavior well but leaves the agent guessing about the response and the required parameter's domain.

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 coverage is 80%, so most parameters are self-documenting, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express — that every supplied filter must match simultaneously. It leaves `kind` values and `withThumbnails` unexplained, though `kind` is the required parameter.

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 and resource — find layouts of one kind by their structural attributes (columns, background, media, copy volume) — so an agent knows this is an attribute-filtered layout search. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like uichemy_search_layouts or uichemy_list_templates, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 says when NOT to use it (uichemy_create_project with page names already picks every layout) and when it is useful (changing one section, avoiding blind picks among 849 layouts). It omits guidance relative to the other layout-listing/search siblings, so the exclusion set is incomplete.

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