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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only visual preview' and explicit non-actions like 'does not create, publish, update, or promote.' This adds useful context about the tool's non-mutating nature beyond the raw annotation flags, though it does not go into depth about return behavior or edge cases.

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 entire description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the use cases and then states exclusions. Every part earns its place, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, and safety profile, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, it omits any guidance on the two optional parameters, which are undocumented in the schema as well. This leaves an agent uncertain about whether or how to populate artistName and releaseTitle when invoking the 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention artistName or releaseTitle at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to explain how these optional parameters affect the preview, what they are used for, or why an agent should supply them. The description needed to compensate for the missing schema descriptions but did not.

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 action ('preview Smart Link themes') and resource, and clarifies it is a visual preview rather than a create/update/publish operation. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling create/update tools by explicitly listing what it does not do.

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 gives explicit triggers: when the user asks what themes look like, wants to compare themes, or wants to preview before creating/updating a Smart Link. It also tells the agent when not to use it by stating it does not create, publish, update, or promote a Smart Link, which routes the agent away from this tool for mutation tasks.

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