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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return contents (component preview plus a link to the full live showcase), which helps the agent know what a successful call yields. It omits any auth or rate-limit context, but with full annotation coverage the bar is lower.

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 zero filler; the core purpose and component inventory are front-loaded and the input-source note follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete, with only the absence of any sibling routing as a minor gap.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including examples ('linear', 'editorial-warm'), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the parameter's origin ('Takes an id from find-design-system') without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Returns a visual preview of a catalog design system') and enumerates what the preview contains (palette, typography, buttons, card, input, badge). This distinguishes it from data-oriented siblings like get-design-system-kit or extract-design-system, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 supplies a prerequisite chain by stating 'Takes an id from find-design-system,' which tells the agent where the input comes from. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance relative to the other design-system siblings (get-design-system-kit, extract-design-system, get-design-system-status), leaving selection to inference.

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