Search design taste and domain playbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is free. The description adds real context beyond that: results are compact cards with ids (not full content), the default token budget is 1400, and taste_get is required to expand. It does not cover pagination or what happens when the budget truncates results.

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 with no padding: capability, entry-point rule, return shape plus escalation path, then the filter surface. The most decision-relevant facts (use first, compact cards, need taste_get) are front-loaded.

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 nine-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers the entry-point role, the return shape (cards with ids, not full content), the budget default, and the escalation sibling. What is missing is minor: no note on how token budget affects truncation or on total-result counts.

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 explains kind, domain, quality, source, and budget. The description's 'Filters: kind, domain, quality, source' merely enumerates a subset and leaves query, limit, maxTokens, includePlanned, and includeIncomplete to the schema. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') plus a concrete resource ('TastePro's catalog of design directions, palettes, type pairings, hero/section blueprints, brand analyses, domain playbooks, and references'). The second sentence gates it against the sibling tool by naming taste_get as the follow-up for the full pack, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

'Use this first for any visual brief' gives an explicit entry-point rule, and 'call taste_get for the full pack' defines the search-then-fetch sequencing. It stops short of naming when taste_guidelines or taste_audit would be preferable, so the exclusion side is only partially covered.

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