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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return format ('as a CSS block'), which is meaningful for this tool. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens for an unknown id, whether tokens cover all themes, or any auth requirements, so key behavioral detail is missing.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified for the behavioral gaps it leaves open.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description does cover what is returned (a CSS block). It nonetheless leaves the parameter meaning, error behavior, and read-only nature unaddressed, which matters more given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 description adds nothing about the single required 'id' parameter. The enum in the schema is highly self-documenting (it enumerates noodle names), which partially compensates, but the description itself contributes no parameter meaning.

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 (get one noodle's tokens) and specifies the output form (CSS block), which distinguishes it from the plain get_noodle sibling. It stops short of naming get_noodle explicitly as the alternative for non-CSS data.

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 phrase 'to vendor or customise' implies the use case, giving an agent a reasonable signal of intent. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_noodle or list_noodles, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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