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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool returns a shareable standby.design/system URL and a summary, emphasizing that the URL is the deliverable. This is useful behavioral context beyond the safety annotation, though it doesn't detail any side effects (consistent with read-only).

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 description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, then mode selection, then output. The long list of available sets is somewhat redundant with the schema enum but is easily skimmable and doesn't waste words.

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?

Given 8 optional parameters with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential decision (set vs. style), output format (URL + summary), and the critical usage note (give URL to user). It doesn't address parameter interactions or precedence, but that's not essential for a first invocation.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage). The description restates the set list and style options but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 clearly states the tool generates icon sizing tokens (xs–2xl + stroke width) and explicitly lists available icon sets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_color_palette and generate_type_scale. The verb 'generate' plus specific resource 'icon sizing tokens' provides precise purpose.

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 description explains two distinct usage modes: selecting a specific set or providing style preferences for a recommendation. It gives context for when to use the tool (when icon tokens are needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though sibling names imply these.

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