find_token_by_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important normalization behavior (#FFF / #FFFFFF / case differences are handled). However, it does not mention return format, multiple-match behavior, or what happens when no token matches, which would be useful for an agent.

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 compact, with three sentences that each add value: purpose, usage context, and normalization behavior. No unnecessary detail 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?

For a simple, single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, usage scenario, and input normalization. It lacks an explicit statement about return values, but the purpose implies it returns the token identifier. Overall, complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter description already providing examples of accepted formats (#30333d or 30333d). The description adds normalization context but does not significantly expand on semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: reverse-searching color tokens by hex value. It uses a specific verb ('역검색합니다') and a distinct resource ('color token'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_color_token or search_design_system.

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 provides a concrete usage scenario: 'when you want to check which token a hex found in design drafts or code corresponds to.' This implies when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Since the tool is highly specific, this is sufficient.

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