Get themes to rank for a product

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it candidly admits 'runs no server-side search,' explains that `query` is echoed back, states the ordering is neutral, and notes the output is the entire catalog rather than a filtered set. It also declares 'Read-only and free,' which is essential safety information for an agent. This goes far beyond a generic tool description.

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?

Although longer than a typical one-liner, every sentence earns its place: the first sentence front-loads the core action, subsequent sentences handle the misleading name, usage guidance, comparison, follow-up, and safety. The structure flows logically from what → name caveat → when → alternatives → next steps, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description specifies exactly what will be returned (moodSummary, vibeTags, tags, audience, font/palette glimpse) and what the agent should do next (pick 1-3, then get_design_md or apply_theme). The tool's full behavior—including its limitations and relationship to siblings—is captured, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema already describes `query` as the brief with an example, so baseline coverage is high (100%). The description adds meaningful nuance by explaining that `query` is not sent to a matcher but 'echoed back to keep your brief in context,' clarifying its actual role. This extra semantic context is valuable, though not transformative since the schema already handles the basic meaning.

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 first sentence states a specific action—'Return the entire catalog at once, unranked, as compact summaries'—and enumerates the contained fields, making the tool's function unmistakable. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_themes by contrasting unranked/full versus ranked/paged, so there is no confusion about its role.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it when the brief is subtle or cuts across categories and you would rather weigh every option than trust a ranking.' It also names the alternative, 'Prefer list_themes when the brief maps cleanly onto a use case or search phrase,' and clarifies the difference. Follow-up steps (get_design_md, apply_theme) further complete the usage picture.

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