Match a brief to Refero styles

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the return shape, which matters because there is no output schema, but it stays silent on the side effect of the 'expand' parameter pulling uncached styles into a local index, which affects latency and network behavior.

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, zero filler, with the capability statement front-loaded and the routing cue appended. Nothing repeats the title or schema.

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 low-complexity read tool with three well-documented params, the description covers the essentials and compensates for the missing output schema by describing the return payload. It is slightly incomplete on the expand/indexing side effect and on match ordering or scoring.

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 (brief, limit, expand) are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds no format or semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('match a design brief ... return the styles') and even previews the return payload (matches, triggering terms, rationale). It implicitly distinguishes itself from name-based lookups with 'rather than a specific name,' but never names the sibling it displaces.

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 triggering condition ('when the request is qualitative') plus an example query, and implies the when-not case (specific name) without naming the alternative tool. Usable without inference about intent, but routing between refero_search_styles and refero_get_style is left implicit.

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