design_tokens_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only covers the scope (categories, ramps, procedures) but omits details about result format, pagination, relevance sorting, or limits. The agent cannot infer the behavior beyond basic search.

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 a single sentence that fronts the core purpose. It is concise and contains no superfluous information, though it could slightly benefit from structured formatting.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool searches and over what scope, but it is incomplete regarding the return type or how results are presented. Sibling tools provide more specific retrieval, making this search tool's role clear enough.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'query' with examples. The tool description does not add further semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 it searches design token documentation by keyword across categories, ramps, and procedures. The verb 'search' and scope distinguish it from sibling tools like design_tokens_list_categories that list entities and design_tokens_get_category that retrieves a specific category.

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 mentions keyword searching and the parameter example gives usage hints, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing or getting specific tokens. There is no guidance on exclusion cases.

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