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

Annotations already establish it as a read-only, closed-world, non-destructive lookup, so the description is free to add the more valuable context: rules are executed by a real algorithm engine rather than generated by an LLM, and explanations must be grounded in them rather than improvised. That trust/provenance signal is genuinely beyond what the annotations convey.

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 the bracketed resource label, followed by trigger phrases and then what is returned — a sensible order with little filler. The parenthetical 'don't make it up' clause is slightly redundant with the preceding 'keep explanations consistent with platform rules' but it is short.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the shape of the payload conceptually (per-step gate boolean, three named cross-step gates, verbatim rule text). It does not describe the field structure or what the referenced 'steps' are, leaving a modest gap for a zero-arg, no-output-schema tool.

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 baseline of 4 applies; there is no argument semantics for the description to explain and it does not waste space pretending otherwise.

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 names a concrete resource (design gate rules) and states exactly what the tool yields: per-step hard-gate status plus the verbatim text of the three cross-step gates G1/G2/G3. That is specific enough to distinguish it from look-alike siblings such as act_design_guide or act_design_context, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Trigger conditions are given as concrete user utterances ('why won't this step let me pass', 'what conditions must the design satisfy', 'which are hard requirements') plus the assistant-side case of explaining a blocked step, along with an instruction to read this before answering. No exclusions or named alternative tools are offered, which keeps it from a 5.

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