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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key traits: read-only, cached ~24h server-side, and the return shape (full contract JSON or a single section). It does not mention auth/permission requirements or rate limits beyond caching, so it falls short of exhaustive disclosure.

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, then usage, exclusions, behavior, and return semantics in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place; the section-parameter advice directly informs invocation.

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 exists, so the description correctly covers the return format itself (full contract JSON or a single section). Combined with usage routing and caching notes, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% so the schema already documents the section parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by explaining the motivation ('saves tokens when you only need one dimension') and giving a concrete example ('motion' for just the motion tokens).

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 and resource ('Get the Designesy design-system contract') and enumerates what it contains (tokens, motion, acoustic, takt, cadence, typography, components, verification rules). It explicitly names sibling tools it is not (designesy_score, designesy_skill_md), so an agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('when you need the actual contract values ... to author, check, or bind a design') and when-NOT-to-use with named alternatives for each condition. Nothing is left to inference for tool selection.

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