Get CSS and Sass variables

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return content (custom properties plus Sass names and defaults), which matters since no output schema exists. It does not mention result volume or ordering, hence not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then usage guidance and the parameter behavior note. Every sentence carries information; the 'reach for these before writing custom CSS' clause is mildly promotional but functions as guidance.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned data shape, the search scope, and the omit-to-search-all behavior. What remains unstated (query matching semantics beyond substring, result ordering) is minor.

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 50%: `query` is documented in the schema with an example, but `component` has no schema description. The description compensates for `component` by explaining that omitting it searches all components, but adds nothing about how `query` matches or how the two interact. Baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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 resource ('the --bulma-* custom properties a component reads, with their Sass names and defaults'), which is concrete and distinguishable from get_props and lookup_bulma_classes. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

'This is how you restyle bestax — reach for these before writing custom CSS' gives a clear when-to-use context, and 'Omit `component` to search across all of them' explains the broad-search case. No alternative sibling is named for when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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