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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that if the fingerprint does not match, the server returns the current tokens so the agent can update the file, and it clarifies the matching mechanism. 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 three sentences, each earning its place: it explains the fingerprint mechanism, states what the server returns, and gives the usage trigger. Information is front-loaded and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 simple verification tool with two well-documented parameters, no output schema, and supportive annotations, the description is complete. It explains the input source, the behavior (match/stale), the return value (current tokens when stale), and the recommended usage time. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with both parameters well-documented (id from Source line, fingerprint from Fingerprint line with example). The description reinforces the parameter roles but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to calibration, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to verify whether a DESIGN.md copy is current by checking its fingerprint against the server's current token set. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('DESIGN.md copy'), and it is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_design_md (which likely fetches) and get_theme_tokens (which retrieves tokens directly).

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this at the start of a session when a DESIGN.md is already in the repo.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The guidance is adequate for correct selection.

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