Search design styles

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), the description discloses that it runs image and web searches in parallel and merges results — genuinely useful operational knowledge an agent wouldn't get from the schema alone. This tells the agent to expect combined, multi-source output from a single call. The annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description earns credit for adding the execution model on top.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the purpose with concrete examples, the second covers the single non-obvious behavioral trait (parallel execution). Not a single wasted word.

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 search tool with three well-documented parameters, the description covers purpose, scope, and combined-result behavior. The main gaps are an unspecified return format (no output schema exists) and no disambiguation from the similarly named sibling tools — minor for a low-risk, read-only operation.

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 parameters (style, type, num) are already documented. The description's style examples map naturally onto the type enum values ('color-palette', 'typography', 'layout', 'animation'), which provides a slight bridge between intent and schema. But it adds no format, syntax, or behavior details that the schema doesn't already state, landing at a solid baseline.

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 tool's purpose: searching for a specific aesthetic direction with concrete examples like color palettes, typography, layouts, and animation references. The parallel image/web search detail adds specificity beyond a generic search. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related siblings design_search_images or design_search_references, which an agent would need to infer on its own.

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 opening 'Search for a specific aesthetic direction' conveys when to use the tool, and the style examples give useful intent context. But there's no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or any mention of alternatives, which is a real gap given sibling tools like design_search_images and design_search_references are topically adjacent. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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