List styles, room types, materials…

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful cost disclosure ('Free') not present in annotations, but says nothing about output shape, pagination, or how many values are returned. Adequate but thin beyond annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the purpose and the kind→parameter mapping. Slightly run-on, but every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys it returns valid values and, via the schema's details flag, descriptions and preview URLs. Complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could say more about result size/format.

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 67% with search and details self-documented. The description adds real value by naming the target parameter for each enum value (e.g. design_styles→styles, materials→Magic Wand material_image catalog), which the schema's bare enum does not convey.

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 (look up) and resource (valid values) and enumerates exactly which downstream tool parameter each kind feeds, making it unmistakable versus siblings like luw_personas or luw_magic_wand. An agent knows precisely what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Frames the tool as a prerequisite lookup for other Luw.ai tools and ties each kind to its consuming parameter, which strongly implies when to call it. It does not state exclusions or say when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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