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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the defect categories it detects (mixed separators, hue-based color names, version words, duplicate values, abbreviation drift), which effectively previews what the agent will get back from a tool with no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and a compact colon list; every listed rule category is informative and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 read-only, one-parameter lint tool with no output schema, the description covers input forms and detection scope well. The remaining gap is that it says nothing about the shape of the result (issue list, severities, per-name grouping), which an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 a single required "text" parameter described as "Token names or file contents." The description adds meaning beyond that by clarifying the three accepted payload shapes (name list, CSS variables, JSON token file), which the schema does not convey.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Lint design token names") with the accepted input forms enumerated (list, CSS variables, JSON token file) and the exact rule families listed. This clearly separates it from generic naming tools like check_naming_conventions or naming_check, though no sibling is named 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?

The input forms imply how to call it (paste names, CSS, or a token file), which is useful implied usage. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as check_naming_conventions, naming_check, audit_token_scales, or compare_token_sets, all of which sit in adjacent territory.

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