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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts beyond that: the output shape ('one line per check, each tied to a rule') and provenance ('From the candor-agent-ui skill; works with or without Candor'). It says nothing about the version-fallback behavior or checklist length, but the additions are real.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good. However, the long parenthetical listing nine-plus rules in telegraphic fragments ('reasoning is believed', 'the app names the agent') is dense and hard to parse, and much of it could be deferred to the tool's output. It is efficient in sentence count but heavy in clause count.

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?

A read-only, single-optional-parameter retrieval tool with full schema documentation; the description supplies purpose, timing, content shape, and provenance. With no output schema, it covers the return shape at a summary level ('one line per check, each tied to a rule'), which is sufficient. Only the version-fallback nuance is left entirely to the schema.

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 `version` parameter is documented at length in the schema, including the ?kit= default and the fallback when a release's docs are missing. The description mentions version nowhere, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. 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 resource and its role: 'The checklist to run after each screen where an AI agent acts, before moving on.' The parenthetical enumerates the checks it contains, so an agent knows this returns review criteria rather than screen data. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_brief or theme_check, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'to run after each screen where an AI agent acts, before moving on' gives a clear trigger point and sequencing relative to other work. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so the agent must infer that this is not a substitute for get_screen or get_pattern, but the when-to-use signal is concrete.

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