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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that thin captured tokens are supplemented by a live fetch of the source and that `live=false` skips the network round-trip. This goes beyond the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first clause states what the tool returns, followed by a concise list of contents, then the key behavioral option. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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, idempotent tool with a fully documented schema and rich annotations, the description gives enough context: what is returned, the live-fetch behavior, and how to skip it. No output schema exists, but 'full DESIGN.md' adequately conveys the return shape.

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 both `slug` and `live` are already well documented in the input schema, including the behavior of `live=false`. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as 'The full DESIGN.md for one screen' and enumerates its contents (fonts, palette, CSS variables, tech, colour roles, type ramp), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_screen or get_collection. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling, but the specific scope is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving a screen's design system details, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_screen or get_reference_jsx. It only explains the live-fetch behavior, which is about parameter handling, not tool selection.

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