List Fonts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default behavior (first 50 families without a query) and implies a read-only operation by using 'search' and 'returns.' It doesn't describe side effects (there are none), but it covers the most important behavioral nuance (default limit). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 only two sentences, with the primary verb and resource upfront. Every word adds value: 'Search available fonts' sets context, and the second sentence explains query behavior and default limit. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: purpose, filtering, and default pagination. It could mention how results are returned (e.g., array of family names) or case-sensitivity, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters are documented with descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal new meaning—it restates that query filters by family name and notes the default behavior, which the schema already conveys via the limit parameter's default. This meets the baseline of 3 for well-documented schemas.

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 tool's function: 'Search available fonts.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which deal with nodes, slides, or themes rather than fonts. It also immediately clarifies the two modes of operation (with and without a query).

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 explains when to use the query parameter ('to filter by family name') and what happens when it's omitted ('returns first 50 families'). This provides clear usage context, though it doesn't mention any alternatives or explicitly state when not to use the tool—simple enough that this is acceptable.

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