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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds substantial meaning on top: it explains what styleStrip is, why certain inline styles are silently dropped by renderers, and what to do instead (use a Stack/Grid child). That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the return contract before diving into styleStrip semantics. The styleStrip parenthetical is dense but each clause carries real information; minor wordiness in the example explanation keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully specifies the shape of the returned data including the non-obvious styleStrip map. For a read-only, single-optional-parameter introspection tool this covers everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the single optional `type` parameter is already documented with examples. The description restates the omit-to-list behavior, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Return the full prop schema for a single primitive') and enumerates exactly what comes back: types, defaults, options, required fields, allowed children, and styleStrip. No sibling in the tool list does schema introspection, so an agent can identify this tool's role at a glance.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow instruction — 'Read styleStrip BEFORE setting style on a node — eliminates the silent-drop trial-and-error' — and explains the no-arg mode ('Without `type` it lists every primitive'). It lacks explicit when-not-use guidance, but with no competing introspection sibling the context is clear.

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