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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the output type (CSS @import snippet) and the two modes. It does not disclose validation behavior, error handling, whether the output includes full CSS or just an @import line, or any other side effects. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the core action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, but the description gives a clear overview of the two modes and the output type. However, it does not explain how parameters interact per mode (e.g., which params apply to single vs pairing) or provide any usage details beyond the basic generation. The schema covers param descriptions, but the tool's overall behavior is only partially contextualized.

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 input schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds context by mentioning 'single font or heading+body font pairing', which maps to the mode and heading_font/body_font parameters, but it does not elaborate on size, weights, or line_height beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' with a clear resource ('ready-to-use CSS @import snippet') and defines the two modes (single font or heading+body pairing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like suggest_pairings or get_font_info, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage ('Generate ready-to-use CSS @import snippet') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the usage context is only hinted at through the tool's name and purpose.

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