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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious context: the check is advisory rather than blocking, it surfaces detected text only, and it carries no legal weight.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the disclaimers are placed where they matter. The stray trailing markup token "[#fba5cb]" is leftover artifact noise that should not be in a definition.

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 six parameters, a third of them described, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing at the rest of the inputs and at what the check returns (pass/fail, risk flags, severity). Scope and limits are clear; invocation details are not.

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 only 33%, and the two documented parameters (name, prompt) are exactly the ones the description repeats. The undocumented parameters — image_url, workspace, design_uuid, and especially target_channels, which likely selects which prohibited-content rules apply — remain unexplained in both places.

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: an advisory pre-flight scan of prompt/name/detected text for IP, trademark, and prohibited-content risk. It is distinguishable from nearby design-verification siblings through its stated scope (protected marks, prohibited content), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Advisory pre-flight" implies the usage moment (before shipping/publishing a design), and the description gives two explicit exclusions: not legal advice and not an image-content trademark check. It stops short of naming the alternative tools an agent should reach for instead.

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