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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value beyond those annotations by disclosing the shape of the payload: per-step hard-gate flags plus the verbatim G1/G2/G3 cross-step rules. This matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention any deterministic or caching behavior, but that omission is minor for a static rules lookup.

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 uses a labeled, front-loaded structure (USE WHEN / ALIASES / RETURNS) with no filler prose, so an agent can parse it quickly. The bilingual duplication and the long alias list add bulk, but those entries serve retrieval matching and are straightforward to justify.

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?

Because the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a read-only static payload, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: the trigger, what comes back, and the gate identifiers G1/G2/G3. It could be stronger only by mentioning a sibling for step-state queries or noting that the output is static reference text, which is not a blocker.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Under the baseline rule for 0-param tools, a 4 is the appropriate score. The description appropriately spends its words on scope and return content instead.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource: it explains why a design step is blocked and states what the platform requires per step, naming the hard gates G1/G2/G3. That makes the function clear, but the description never contrasts this tool with its closest siblings, such as design_step_context, act_design_next_step, or act_design_decision, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

The 'USE WHEN' clause gives explicit trigger conditions: the agent needs to know why a step is blocked, or what each step requires. There is no 'when not to use' guidance and no named alternative for cases where the agent needs step state rather than gate rules, which keeps this from a 5.

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