search_macro_blocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: results are limited to 'approved' blocks, it returns 'summaries and immutable refs only', and it discloses cursor-based pagination for larger result sets.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the return/pagination caveat follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema and 10 undocumented parameters, the description successfully conveys the result shape (summaries + refs) and pagination, but omits the meaning of limit and parentNodeId and never clarifies the approved-only constraint's implications. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps the main filters (q/role/family/tag) and alludes to designId/pageId/slotId via 'design/page/slot context', but leaves limit, cursor semantics, and parentNodeId entirely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Search approved macro layout blocks') and enumerates the filter dimensions (query, role, family, tag). It distinguishes the tool from a generic search, though it never names the nearest sibling search_components to clarify the boundary.

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?

Implies usage via 'Optional design/page/slot context filters to slot-compatible roles', which tells the agent when the context filters are relevant, and 'use cursors for more' covers continuation. However there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to an alternative tool.

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