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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the review is 'non-exhaustive' and that an empty issue list 'does not establish accessibility conformance or runtime correctness' — a meaningful limitation an agent must know before relaying results. Annotations already cover the safe-read profile, and the description adds substantive behavioral caveats.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by usage trigger and the critical non-exhaustiveness caveat. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still summarizes them. With 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, nothing an agent needs to select or call this tool 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%, so the schema already documents code, focus, and minPriority including their defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('static heuristic review of pasted HTML, CSS, or JavaScript') and names what it returns (prioritized issues, fix guidance, manual-verification suggestions). The word 'pasted' implicitly distinguishes it from audit_url, which operates on live URLs.

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?

Explicitly gives the trigger condition: 'Use it when the user requests a review, audit, or debugging of source code.' It does not, however, name the alternative for live pages (audit_url) or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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