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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: empty results are not an error, exact matches rank first, full pagination envelope (total, count, hasMore, next_offset null on last page), a deprecated has_more alias, and an optional fallbackReason. That is well past what the annotations convey.

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-loads purpose, then Args with defaults and constraints, then the return envelope, then three concrete examples. Every block is scannable and none of the sentences are 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the return shape and the empty-result edge case, plus paging behavior for an openWorld search over a large style catalog. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description meaningfully enriches it: query is documented as case-insensitively matching slug, name, description, tags and keywords, and the defaults/ranges for limit and offset are restated in context of paging. The added matching semantics genuinely go beyond the schema's terse "Keyword to match".

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ("Search StyleKit design styles") and immediately specifies the search axes (keyword and/or category) plus ranking behavior for exact slug/name matches. This cleanly separates it from the get_* siblings that retrieve a single known style.

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 closing line names an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: "For full tokens of one style, use stylekit_get_style_tokens instead." The example block also maps natural-language intents ("find a glassy frosted style", "next page of retro styles") onto concrete calls, so an agent knows both when to use this tool and how to apply it.

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