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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and "No network access" largely restates openWorldHint=false. "Deterministic" is a genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations, but there is no note on behavior for unsupported check/framework combinations or fallback handling.

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?

Front-loaded with the value proposition, then the allowed values, then the invocation rule — a sensible order. The inline re-enumeration of check and framework duplicates the schema and is the only expendable content.

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, two-parameter, fully schema-documented tool this covers purpose, precondition, valid inputs and rough return shape (deterministic copy-paste code) with no output schema needed. Minor gap: nothing about what happens when the requested combination has no snippet.

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 enum values themselves are already documented; the description adds provenance by tying check to fix.snippetId and framework to fix.framework, which tells the agent where to obtain valid values. Repeating the full enum lists is redundant with the schema, but the cross-tool linkage is real added meaning.

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 and resource — returns copy-paste code for one audit check on one stack — and positions itself as the follow-up to audit_ai_readiness, which no sibling does. An agent can tell immediately that this is the snippet-retrieval tool rather than an audit or crawl-check tool.

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?

"Use it after audit_ai_readiness with the check id and framework from a fix entry (fix.snippetId and fix.framework)" gives an explicit ordering rule and names the exact source of the parameter values. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g., when no fix entry exists) or naming an alternative.

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