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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that output is a CSS block; nothing about what happens for an invalid id, whether the block is complete or partial, auth requirements, or whether the operation is read-only.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and output form arrive immediately. It is arguably too terse to stand alone, but there is no wasted wording.

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-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: the meaning/derivation of the id, and any behavioral context for the returned CSS block. It conveys the output type but little else an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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% and the sole required parameter has no documented meaning. "One noodle's" weakly implies the id selects a noodle, but the description never explains that the id must be one of the enumerated noodle names (or where to obtain it), leaving the schema's enum as the only signal.

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 resource (a noodle's design tokens) and output form (a CSS block), which distinguishes it from sibling get_noodle and the list/find tools that operate on noodles as entities. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling, so it's clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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?

"to vendor or customise" hints at the use case and implies this is the tool for exportable CSS rather than raw token data, but it never states when to prefer this over get_noodle or how the id relates to results from list_noodles/find_noodles. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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