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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context — that the remote server returns only the catalog and that rendering must be performed through the local MCP — which prevents an agent from expecting this call to apply a style.

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 tight sentences with the resource inventory front-loaded and the remote/local split stated second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description still conveys the shape and volume of the result (15 presets plus aliases, overrides, safe areas) and clarifies the remote-vs-local division of labor. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. No syntax or format details are needed.

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 ("List") and enumerates the exact resource contents: 15 local rendering presets, aliases, style overrides, and platform safe areas. None of the siblings (caption/audio/pricing tools) overlap, so an agent can identify this as the sole style-catalog tool without ambiguity.

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 draws a clear boundary between this call and the actual work: this remote server only returns the catalog, while rendering happens "via the local MCP." That is actionable routing guidance, though it stops short of explicitly stating when this tool should be preferred over other catalog or pricing calls.

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