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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this ('takes no project and changes nothing') and adds valuable domain context about project-wide slot token sharing. However, it doesn't describe the return shape (the clash report an agent would act on), leaving that gap.

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 purpose and timing; each sentence carries information (mechanism, timing, consequence). Slightly long but no dead weight.

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, and the description explains when/why to call but not what the check returns (e.g., a list of clashing tokens/layout pairs). Minor gap, but the decision-critical context is present.

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 schema includes a concrete example of the layouts array with kind/variant. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 (check) with resource (layouts), scope (a SHORTLIST, cross-checked against each other), and the actual defect it detects (shared slot tokens). Clearly distinct from siblings like search_layouts or create_project.

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?

Explicit timing guidance ('Call this while choosing sections, not after'), names the sibling create_project as the point after which it's too late, and explains the cost of skipping it ('no tool that re-layouts a built project').

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