Search Brand Kits

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely non-obvious visibility semantics: published catalog brands, workspace kits, and the caller's own unshared kits are all returned, and domain-restricted brands appear only when the verified email domain matches. That is real behavioral context an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by integration and visibility rules. No filler or repetition of annotation data.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is correctly omitted, and the description covers the two things an agent could not derive elsewhere: visibility rules and id reuse. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance for filtering and paging in a tool that returns up to 100 results.

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?

Five parameters, 60% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about `q`, `page`, `limit`, `type`, or `domain` semantics. Its mention of approved email domains concerns result visibility, not the `domain` filter parameter, and the `type` enum values (CATALOG/WORKSPACE/PERSONAL) go unmentioned despite being the main way to narrow scope.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search the brand kits you can style a deck with') and immediately narrows the scope to kits usable for deck styling. It does not need to distinguish itself from a competing brand-kit sibling because none exist in the sibling list, so it lands just short of the top mark.

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?

It gives concrete follow-on usage: take a result's `id` and pass it as `brand_kit_id` when creating a deck, which tells the agent how this tool chains into `create_presentation`. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or stating that pagination/filters should be used to narrow large result sets.

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