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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing mode-dependent behavior (no code → verification guidance; code → heuristic analysis with compliance status), the heuristic caveat, and that issues include a fix prompt. It stops short of detailing scoring thresholds or result structure, but the output schema covers returns.

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 core action and the PROACTIVE cue, then structured with a bolded Workflow block. It is slightly longer than needed (the mode description and workflow overlap), but every section carries actionable routing information.

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?

A read-only, idempotent analysis tool with an output schema: the description covers both invocation modes, the workflow position among siblings, and remediation hand-off. Nothing an agent needs to select or call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning, clarifying that 'code' is optional and changes the tool's behavior between guidance and analysis modes.

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 ('Checks code against a specific frontend rule') and scopes it to HTML/CSS/JS review, which no sibling does — the others fetch, explain, fix, or review broadly. An agent can distinguish it from get_rule and review_code without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use PROACTIVELY when reviewing HTML/CSS/JS code'), explicit triggers ('after search_rules finds relevant rules, or when review_code flags a specific issue'), and explicit follow-ups (fix_rule for remediation, explain_rule for rationale). Alternatives and sequencing are fully covered.

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