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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses what the tool returns (colors, typography, CSS variables, DESIGN.md) and implies a read-only operation. While it doesn't mention error behavior or edge cases, for a simple getter this is acceptable and adds concrete value by enumerating output contents.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the return contents and how to obtain the parameter. It doesn't specify the exact output format or error handling, but these are minor for a straightforward fetch and the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% (slug has a description). The description itself doesn't add parameter detail, but the schema's description 'Style-Slug aus list_styles' provides a valuable cross-reference to the source of the slug, which goes beyond a bare type definition. This warrants above-baseline scoring.

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 states the tool returns all design tokens of an extracted brand style, enumerating specific components (colors, typography, CSS variables, DESIGN.md). It distinguishes from siblings like get_component and get_post by focusing on style tokens, avoiding any tautology.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives, but the parameter description 'Style-Slug aus list_styles' clearly indicates the workflow: first list styles to obtain a slug, then call this tool. This is effective implicit guidance, though it lacks explicit exclusions for when not to use it.

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