assets-get-google-font-info

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

No annotations provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'gets' without explaining side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It does not specify what information is returned, leaving the agent uninformed about the output structure and potential constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the action and target, earning high marks for conciseness.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It fails to describe what 'info' includes, leaving the agent guessing about the return format. Given the critical missing output information, a score of 3 reflects the gap.

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% coverage with a detailed parameter description specifying exact matching and referencing the listing tool. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema baseline, so a score of 3 is appropriate as per the guidelines.

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 verb 'Gets' and the resource 'Google Fonts info' and specifies the input 'for a given font family'. It directly contrasts with siblings like 'assets-add-google-font-to-asset-pack' (mutation) and 'assets-get-google-font-families' (listing), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 only implies usage when needing font info for a specific family. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention criteria like required permissions or prerequisites. The parameter description references the sibling tool for listing families, but the main description lacks this guidance.

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