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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail by listing the contract violations it checks, but it does not describe what happens on invalid input or what kind of validation result is returned.

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 is tightly written in two sentences with no wasted wording. The validation scope is front-loaded and the required input parameter is stated immediately afterward.

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 validation tool with four parameters, a nested theme object, and no output schema, the description is adequate on inputs and checks but does not explain the return format or how validation failures are surfaced. An agent can invoke the tool, but it cannot fully predict the shape or semantics of the validation result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds only a small amount of meaning by explicitly naming the 'code' parameter as screen code; it says nothing extra about theme, version, or filename beyond the schema.

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 specific verb, 'Confere,' and names the concrete checks performed against the Refy contract, including required props, union values, raw HTML controls, literal color/font, and internal imports. It clearly identifies the resource as screen code, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling validation tool refy_theme_validate.

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 description explains what the tool checks but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as refy_theme_validate or refy_component. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to route the agent between validation and other Refy tools.

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