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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ('Returns {valid, issues[]}') and the iconLibrary enforcement behavior ('imports from any other icon library are reported as errors'). It could go further by explicitly stating there are no side effects, but the read-only nature of 'validate' is strongly implied.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function and return value, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 modest complexity, the description covers the purpose, return value, usage guidance, and relationship to a sibling tool. The schema handles parameter details, and no output schema is needed. Nothing meaningful is missing.

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%, and both parameters already have thorough descriptions (e.g., iconLibrary default and supported values). The main description adds no additional parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Validate') and resource ('TSX/JSX snippet against real @marmoui/ui prop signatures'), and clearly differentiates from the sibling tool by naming 'review_generated_code' and explaining the difference. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool ('when validating user-provided or existing code') and when not to ('Prefer review_generated_code for post-generation review'), naming the alternative. This provides direct, actionable guidance.

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