get_css_property_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool retrieves information from MDN documentation and mentions what content is included (syntax, examples, use cases), but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, source, and content coverage. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. The description is appropriately sized for this type of lookup tool.

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 read-only lookup tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks important contextual details. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention response format, error conditions, or limitations. The description is complete enough to understand what the tool does but not how to effectively use it.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'examples' which relates to the 'include_examples' parameter, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieves comprehensive information'), resource ('CSS property from MDN documentation'), and scope ('including syntax, examples, and use cases'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on documentation retrieval rather than browser support checking, usage confirmation, or solution suggestion.

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 implies usage when detailed documentation about a CSS property is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_css_browser_support' or 'suggest_css_solution'. There's no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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