Recommend a design direction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds context that the tool is an evidence-provider (host model picks), clarifies that scores include soft penalties, and corrects potential naming confusion for 'tone'. No contradictions.

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 sentences with no fluff: first sentence covers output, second gives usage context, third clarifies tone and score composition. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers main output structure and usage timing, but fails to document most input parameters. With 12 parameters and 0% schema coverage, more detail on param effects is needed for full agent comprehension.

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?

Only the 'tone' parameter is explained (allowed values, field name, array type). Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate, but other 11 parameters lack any explanatory text. The description adds marginal value beyond enum definitions in schema.

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?

Description specifies 'return scored style candidates' with reasons and rejected styles, clearly distinguishing from sibling 'compare_design_directions' by stating the host model makes the final pick and that this tool should be called before writing UI.

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?

Includes explicit directive 'Call before writing UI' and indicates the tool is for evidence provision, not decision-making. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings like 'compare_design_directions'.

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