Get a style as structured data

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 discloses the return payload and notes the data is scraped from the live site (implying network fetch), but says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or the cache/refresh behavior that the schema hints at. Useful context, but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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 what is returned and immediately followed by the alternative-tool routing. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the return value, and it does so reasonably by naming the token categories and JSON format. Caching/refresh semantics and failure modes are left to the schema, which is acceptable for a simple three-parameter get-by-id tool, though a note on the read-only/cached nature would round it out.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description implicitly connects to two of them (measured tokens, live-site scraping) but adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 (return) and resource (the parsed design system plus measured tokens scraped from the live site) and enumerates the payload contents (colours, fonts, radii, spacing). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling refero_get_design_md, so an agent can pick between the two without opening a schema.

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?

It gives a clear routing rule: prefer refero_get_design_md when prose is wanted for a document, which implies this tool is for structured/JSON consumption. It does not address the other siblings (search_styles, match_style, list_style_ids) or state explicit when-not conditions, but the primary alternative is covered.

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