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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the section parameter selects one section "in full" versus "all" delivering the entire document, which tells the agent the response size is caller-controlled. It does not warn that "all" may be large or describe the response shape, keeping it 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the content is and then how to call it. Every clause carries information: the topic list tells the agent whether the resource is relevant, and the second sentence covers the only parameter. No 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?

With one optional parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed to invoke correctly. The only residual gap is any hint about the volume or structure of the return when section is "all".

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 the schema already documents that section takes a number, a title like "motion", or "all". The description's worked examples ("7", "motion") repeat the schema rather than adding new semantics such as accepted casing, partial matches, or error behavior for unknown sections. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a concrete resource (the ndekoui design rules) and enumerates its contents — surfaces/hairlines, radius, colour, type, Base UI primitive composition, motion signatures and timing, anti-patterns. That enumeration clearly separates it from siblings like get_theme or get_item, which an agent can rule out without opening a 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?

"Call it once before writing UI" gives an explicit trigger and a call-frequency rule, and the section guidance implies the two modal workflows (read one section vs. read everything). It stops short of naming an alternative or saying when not to call it, so it lands just above the bar rather than at it.

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