Find looks by style

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that. It does: matching is fuzzy rather than exact, and results come back "ranked matches," which tells the agent to expect approximate, ordered output. Limits (result cap, match threshold) are still undisclosed.

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?

Front-loaded verb and resource, then four compact examples on one line, then the return behavior. No sentence is padding; the examples earn their space by showing input semantics that the schema does not.

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 one-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies input semantics and return behavior ("ranked matches"), which is nearly everything needed. It stops short of describing result shape or how matches feed into sibling tools like preview_url or build_share_url.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as "Single word or short phrase," so baseline is 3. The description goes further by demonstrating the semantic space of acceptable keywords (style, aesthetic, use-case) with concrete mappings, which tells the agent what kinds of tokens actually match.

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 and mechanism ("Fuzzy-find presets by vibe / aesthetic / use-case keyword") against a clearly named resource. The keyword-driven fuzzy match inherently separates it from the sibling list_presets, which would enumerate rather than search. An agent can select it 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?

Usage is implied by the worked examples ('synthwave' → Vapor), which show the intended input style, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of list_presets as the alternative for full enumeration. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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