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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: a five-minute live-cache and a bundled snapshot fallback during outages marked by origin/fallbackReason. This is real operational context beyond the structured fields.

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 core action, then organized into Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence is useful, though the Returns JSON listing is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

It covers inputs, output shape, caching/fallback behavior, an example invocation, and the error case (listing available recipes when the component isn't found). For a 2-param read-only tool with an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds example values for 'component' ('button', 'card', 'input') and an example mapping ('glassmorphism button' -> slug/component), giving concrete semantics beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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: 'Render a ready-to-use component for a style: the full Tailwind className and JSX code.' It also names a concrete sibling (stylekit_get_style) as the place to discover recipe ids, so an agent can distinguish it from the other stylekit 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?

It explains that components are usually 'button', 'card', 'input' and directs the agent to stylekit_get_style to check recipeIds, which is a useful routing hint. However, it does not address when to prefer this over siblings like stylekit_get_implementation_brief or stylekit_get_shadcn_install, leaving the broader routing to inference.

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