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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value by naming the validation categories (variant conflicts, token misuse), but it does not clarify that auto-fix returns corrected classes rather than mutating anything, nor what the diagnostics look like.

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?

A single sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (what it checks, the optional fix) earns its place.

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 read-only validator with five parameters and no output schema, the description should say something about what is returned (errors vs warnings, fixed class strings). It covers the check's scope but leaves the result shape entirely to inference.

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 including autoFix, intentVariant, activeModifiers, and allowCustomClasses is documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's only addition is the phrase 'optionally auto-fix', which restates autoFix without new semantics.

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+resource ('Check a Button className') and scopes the check to variant conflicts and token misuse, with an optional auto-fix. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling generate_button_classes, so it falls short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus generate_button_classes, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint is 'optionally auto-fix it', which loosely points at the autoFix parameter but names no alternative or condition.

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