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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden, and it clearly describes the search behavior and the nature of results (real public-product patterns). It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool this is not a major gap; still, it could explicitly state non-destructive behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no redundancy. Every clause adds information.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description effectively communicates the scope of the library and the shape of results (source URLs, color roles, etc.), covers when to use it, and lets the rich schema handle parameter details.

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 schema naturally documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond listing content categories, which mirrors the existing schema. 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 'Search' and identifies the exact resource 'Standout's curated reference library', listing the types of patterns included (style, screen, component). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_reference (specific retrieval) and search_flows (flow search).

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?

States explicitly to 'Use before or during a build when you need evidence-backed visual patterns,' giving clear timing and intent. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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