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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral note – results are lines to be taken whole, with a header explaining role mapping – but says nothing about how many lines return or how limit behaves.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then output handling. The final sentence is slightly cryptic but short; every sentence carries information rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only hints at return shape (whole lines plus a header for role mapping). It never explains whether multiple matches return, how limit interacts with the 348-set, or which searches are exclusive. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 3-param lookup tool.

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 33%: `near` is documented as a hex, but `query` and `limit` are bare. The description compensates partly by illustrating query values ('russet, slate, "dark warm"'), which adds real meaning, while limit is left to inference from the schema's 1-30 bounds.

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 states a specific resource (Sanzo Wada's 348 combinations) and specific retrieval modes: by colour or material word, or nearest hex. It's clearly a palette lookup, distinguishable from siblings like get_theme or search_pieces, though it doesn't name an explicit alternative.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions: 'Only for Free colour, a brand board no theme fits, or colours they asked for.' That functions as both a use condition and an implicit exclusion, steering agents away from themed boards without naming the sibling to use instead.

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