Look up one moodboard

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

The annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: partial names resolve, ambiguous names produce an error listing candidates rather than a guess, and references returns a sampled subset spread across the board rather than front-loaded images.

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 compact sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by explaining a behavioral rule or its rationale, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the low tool complexity, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description covers everything needed: resolution method, edge cases, error behavior, return content, and the references sampling intent. No critical operational gap remains.

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 schema already documents both parameters, and the description adds meaningful behavior: partial-name matching is acceptable when unambiguous, ambiguous names are errors, and references means 'as imagine would use them,' sampled across the board. This significantly enriches the bare schema definitions.

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 action ('Look up'), target resource ('a moodboard'), and return value ('reference images'), and specifies identification by name or id. This clearly differentiates it from the list/create/add/remove moodboard siblings, which concern enumeration or mutation.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: to look up one moodboard and its reference images, including partial-name matching and ambiguity error handling. It also gives explicit guidance on when to use the references parameter. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for broader navigation, so it stops short of a 5.

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