Search Refero styles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: matches occur on word boundaries across names, north-star statements, colours, fonts and URLs, and results improve as the on-demand local index grows.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; the matching-scope and index-growth details follow in priority order. No filler, though the index note borders on implementation detail an agent may not need.

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, but the description need not describe return shape for a simple search. Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by explaining that the index grows on demand and that `expand` pulls uncached styles in, which clarifies the otherwise puzzling interaction between the index and the expand parameter.

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 ("Find design styles") plus the target site and the input modality (free text). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like refero_match_style or refero_list_style_ids, so an agent must infer which search variant to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by "by free text" and the note that the local index grows on demand, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus refero_match_style, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance. The agent gets context about caching behavior but no routing rule.

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