Search design tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: ranking rules (semantic above primitives, deprecated last) and the returned fields per brand and mode, which an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the usage imperative, then return/ranking behavior. No filler, though the ranking clause and return-field list are slightly dense for one sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description adds ranking semantics that matter for interpreting results. Only the undocumented 'limit' parameter and pagination/truncation behavior are left unaddressed.

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 75%; query, brand and mode are documented in the schema, though 'limit' has no description at all. The description reinforces the query style and implies brand/mode shape the resolved value, but adds no format or defaulting detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Find design tokens by intent or name') with three concrete example queries, which makes the search semantics unambiguous. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, so the boundary with find_token_for_value (reverse value lookup) or resolve_token is left implicit.

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?

'Use it before writing any color, spacing, radius or font value' gives a clear trigger condition tied to the agent's task. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for cases like exact-name resolution, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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