Search Refero styles

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does add real context: word-boundary matching across names/statements/colours/fonts/URLs, and the note that the local index grows on demand so results improve as more styles are indexed. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and return shape, which keeps it short of a 5 but it is well above the bare minimum.

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, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then matching behavior, then the index caveat. Every sentence adds information with no padding, though it could be marginally more compact.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description bears extra weight. It covers what is searched and the index behavior but never describes what a result looks like or whether results are paginated, leaving a gap for a search tool.

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 (query, limit, expand) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal value by explaining the index-growth behavior tied to expand, but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Find design styles on styles.refero.design by free text') with the exact domain and search modality, so an agent knows what it does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling refero_match_style, which also sounds search-like, leaving mild overlap ambiguity.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance is given. With a sibling named refero_match_style and refero_get_style, the description never explains which one to pick for a given intent, forcing the agent to infer.

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