Match a brief to Refero styles

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the return shape (matches plus triggering terms and rationale), which is real value, but it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how caching/`expand` affects latency, or any cost implications.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the first states what is returned, the second states when to reach for it. The routing condition is front-loaded after the core behavior.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description responsibly summarizes the return (styles, triggering terms, rationale). The remaining gap is the caching/`expand` behavior and any latency or freshness caveat, which the schema alludes to only through a parameter.

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 the schema already documents `brief`, `limit`, and `expand` with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (match), the input (a prose design brief), and the resource (Refero styles), plus describes the return payload (matched styles with triggering terms and rationale). It does not name the closest sibling (refero_search_styles) directly, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear selection condition: use it when the request is qualitative ("I need a dense, data-heavy dashboard") rather than a specific name. This implicitly routes name-based lookups elsewhere, but it never names the alternative tool or states explicit when-not conditions.

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