Search NightMarquee prompts

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat them. It adds value by specifying that matching occurs against titles, taglines, and style keywords, and that the return includes slugs, taglines, and demo links—behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradictions exist.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the action and filter options, the second states the output and its downstream use. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant words, making every sentence earn its place.

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?

The tool has 4 optional parameters, all fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists. The description covers the search behavior, filter options, and output purpose, while annotations handle safety. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, with each parameter (query, category, tier, limit) having a clear description and enums for category and tier. The description merely lists the filter dimensions without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema carries the semantic load, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (search) and resource (NightMarquee catalog of website build prompts), lists specific filters (keyword, category, tier) with the category enum spelled out, and indicates the output (slugs, taglines, demo links) intended for nightmarquee_get_prompt. This differentiates it from siblings like get_prompt (retrieval) and sign_in/whoami (auth).

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 description explicitly notes the output is meant to be passed to nightmarquee_get_prompt, establishing this as the discovery step before retrieval. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling context and purpose make the usage clear. The tier-specific auth note in the schema adds context, though the description itself doesn't contrast with alternatives.

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