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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns copy-paste snippets with reduced-motion fallbacks, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention any side effects, dependencies, or limitations, and as a simple retrieval tool, this level of disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences: the first lists example primitives, the second states the return format and usage context. It is front-loaded with a clear identifier and every sentence serves a purpose, though the enumeration is slightly lengthy.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives the return type and usage cue, but it does not explain how the many filters interact, what a typical response contains, or how the tool behaves with no parameters. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but leaves room for ambiguity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example keywords like 'premium' and 'luxury' that overlap with the query parameter's description, but does not provide meaningful new insight into any specific parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning premium UI primitives (hero backgrounds, Framer-style dials/gauges, glass cards, etc.) as copy-paste HTML/CSS/vanilla JS snippets. The verb 'Returns' specifies the action, and the specific examples of primitives distinguish it from sibling tools like get_component_code or get_motion_recipes.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user asks for premium, luxury, beautiful, wavy, Framer-like, glass, 3D controls, or high-end motion.' This provides clear, actionable guidance for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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