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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (ids, why they match, traits) and that results are ranked. However it says nothing about the limit parameter's effect, result count, or any read-only/permission characteristics.

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?

One dense sentence with embedded examples; the core action is front-loaded and there is little waste. The parenthetical examples are long but they are the most informative part.

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?

Since there is no output schema, describing the return values is valuable, and the description does so. But it omits the limit parameter entirely and gives no guidance on result volume, leaving the definition partially incomplete for a 2-parameter 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% for both parameters. The description only conveys meaning for 'query' via the example briefs; the 'limit' parameter (1-12) is never mentioned, so a meaningful half of the schema remains undocumented.

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 verb+resource: it ranks design languages against a style brief. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_noodles (enumerate) and get_noodle (fetch one), though the tool name's 'noodles' jargon is only implicitly decoded as 'design languages'.

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?

Two concrete example briefs imply when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as list_noodles or get_design_language, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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