Look up Bulma classes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('one row per class'), which matters since there is no output schema, and by flagging the optional tag pass-through.

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 with the core behavior, then usage, then the tag hint; every sentence carries information. The inline class-string examples aid selection but make it slightly longer than strictly needed.

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 lookup with a fully documented schema and annotations, the description supplies the missing return-format cue and the usage trigger. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears absent, though the row/field shape is only gestured at.

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 both parameters (tag, classes) are already documented with format and examples in the schema. The description's 'pass the tag the classes sit on when there is one' hints that tag is contextually optional, but adds little beyond the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource: maps a Bulma class string to its bestax component and props, one row per class. The concrete examples ('button is-primary', 'columns is-mobile') and the class-string framing distinguish it from sibling lookups like get_component and get_props.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call BEFORE hand-writing a Bulma class, and when converting existing markup, plus to pass the tag when one exists. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.