List styles, room types, materials…

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful non-structural trait — 'Free' — which matters in a toolset where sibling generation tools presumably consume credits. It does not describe output size/pagination beyond the details flag.

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?

One tightly packed sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the kind-to-parameter mapping. No filler sentences.

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 should ideally sketch the return shape; it only implies it via the details flag ('descriptions and preview image URLs'). Given the tool is a simple read-only lookup, this is close to sufficient but leaves the response format implicit.

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 documents 'search' and 'details' but the enum values for 'kind' are bare strings. The description supplies the missing semantics by explaining what each kind value returns and which target parameter consumes it — genuine value 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 (look up) and resource (valid values) and enumerates exactly which option sets it returns, mapping each to the sibling parameter it feeds. An agent can distinguish this from luw_interior_design or luw_magic_wand without opening any 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?

Clearly frames this as a prerequisite lookup for other Luw.ai tools and names the consuming parameter for each kind, so the agent knows when it's needed. It stops short of explicit 'when not to use' or ordering guidance (e.g. call before invoking the design tool).

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