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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: what the tool flags and rewards, that it returns pass/fail with fix instructions, and that taste-profile bindings are unavailable on the hosted endpoint. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, specific checks, rewards, scope exclusion, return format, and endpoint limitation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary detail without filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, no output schema, and rich input schema, the description covers the essential context: what is checked, what is rewarded, return format, platform scope, and remote-endpoint limitations. It could be slightly more explicit about strict-mode grading, but the schema already covers that parameter.

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 documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds some useful context about the stateless mode and hosted-endpoint limitation, but it does not significantly expand on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Audit SwiftUI source against Apple's Human Interface Guidelines.' It then enumerates concrete checks (fonts, colors, accent color, tap targets, spacing) and explicitly scopes itself to iOS-native SwiftUI, distinguishing it from the many sibling audit tools.

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 clear usage context: it is for SwiftUI/iOS only, explicitly excludes web/CSS rules, and explains when to omit 'project'/'profile' to run the stateless audit. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the platform/framework scoping is enough to guide selection.

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