Recommend a Fireplace for a Vibe

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns top 3 recommendations and matches on tags, mood text, palette, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise, front-loading the action and purpose. It includes example args and lists matching criteria in two sentences, with 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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema. The description covers input purpose and what to expect (top 3 recommendations). It does not detail the output format (e.g., list of IDs or objects), but it is largely complete for 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines the 'vibe' parameter. The description adds value by providing concrete examples and explaining how the vibe is matched (against tags, mood text, palette), enriching the parameter's semantics.

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 suggests a fireplace based on a vibe/mood/use case, matching against tags, mood text, and palette, and returns top 3 recommendations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve specific fireplace details or list styles.

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 implies usage when a free-form vibe description is available. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tool names (e.g., fireplace_get_embed_code) indicate different purposes. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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