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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description is consistent with that. It adds real context beyond the annotations: findings are returned ranked by severity, span six named dimensions, and probe specific stress cases (first-use, 500th-use, zero-data, huge-data, no-permission, irreversible).

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?

Two sentences, with the core action and accepted input forms front-loaded and the return shape immediately after. The long enumeration of dimensions and stress questions is dense but each item is load-bearing for set-versus-sibling comparisons, so little is wasted.

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, the description carries the burden of describing results and does so (severity-ranked findings across named dimensions). For a single-required-param, nested-object tool this is nearly complete; only the exact finding format and any length/scope limits are left implicit.

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 three parameters including the artifact's type/value structure and the prd fallback behavior. The description restates only that the PRD is optional and the artifact may be a description or URL, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (adversarial critique) and resource (a design given as description or screenshot URL), then enumerates the exact review dimensions it covers. That enumeration cleanly separates it from the narrower siblings (audit_copy, check_terminology, find_assumptions), which each cover one slice of this broader review.

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?

"Call it before presenting a design to a human or handing it to engineering" gives an explicit trigger point in the workflow. It does not name when to prefer a narrower sibling (e.g., audit_copy) over this tool, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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