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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: how type prefixes influence the checks, what specific copy categories are evaluated, and that the whole set is checked for consistency. It omits output format and any limits on input size, but the main behavior is disclosed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that moves from input format to review scope without padding. The parenthetical list of allowed types is long but functional, and every clause contributes useful information. It could be slightly easier to scan, but it is appropriately concise.

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 zero-required-parameter review tool with no output schema, the description covers input formats and review behavior but does not describe what the caller receives back. It also leaves open what happens when both 'text' and 'items' are provided. This is adequate but has clear gaps for interpreting and using the tool's result.

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%, so the schema already explains both parameters with examples. The description adds value by documenting the optional type-prefix taxonomy and what those type labels trigger during review, which is not captured in the schema. It still does not clarify precedence if both 'text' and 'items' are supplied, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Review interface copy') and adds the exact scope of checks: per-type appropriateness, set-level consistency, and AI-writing tells. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling lint_* tools, which target design feedback, token names, and research questions rather than UI copy.

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?

It gives clear context for use by describing the expected input format and the optional type prefixes, making it obvious that callers should submit copy strings. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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