suggest_fonts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: results come from the live catalogue of ~1,950 families and defaults are deliberately excluded unless opted in. It does not discuss output shape, determinism, or network/auth expectations, but for a read-only suggestion tool the main behavioral traits are surfaced.

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?

Two sentences, no filler; the primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the default-exclusion behavior earns its place as meaningful nuance.

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 tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the source and filtering behavior, but with no output schema it leaves the return shape unmentioned and gives no guidance about sibling tools. It is adequate for a basic call, but an agent evaluating whether this is the right tool over suggest_pairing still has to infer from context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and clear descriptions for role, mood, limit, and include_defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description's default-exclusion sentence reinforces include_defaults but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states; role and mood are merely echoed in the purpose sentence.

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 names the action ('Suggest'), the resource ('Google Fonts'), and the selection lens (role and mood), plus the live catalogue scope. It is distinguishable from the sibling suggest_pairing by focusing on individual faces rather than pairings, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 a use case: picking a single font for a role/mood while avoiding default-looking UI fonts. It does not state when to prefer a sibling like suggest_pairing, audit_css, or check_contrast, and includes no when-not-to-use guidance.

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