Audit Ethical Design

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

Beyond the annotations' readOnly/idempotent hints, the description discloses concrete behavioral boundaries: no checkout is completed, no countdown is timed, no warehouse is queried, and no consent banner is clicked. It also states that findings are not verdicts on the business, which is critical context for interpreting results.

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 detailed yet tightly organized: purpose first, then behavioral caveats, then return contents, then usage pairing. Every sentence earns its place; the explicit 'not doing' list prevents harmful assumptions without being padded.

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 one required parameter, an output schema, and detailed annotations, the description still adds valuable context: the exact patterns checked, the return shape including the notVisible list, and the limitation that nothing is actually measured. Agents have everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the code parameter is already well documented. The description adds marginal context by calling it a 'pasted snippet' and emphasizing 'Snippet only,' but it does not need to add more meaning because the schema handles the definition.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Audit a pasted snippet for named deceptive-pattern tells from ethical-design.' It then enumerates the exact patterns checked, making the tool's scope unmistakable and clearly distinct from broader design or accessibility audits.

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 explicitly scopes usage with 'Snippet only — there is no directory mode' and advises pairing with get_design_doc('ethical-design') and a human reviewing the render. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not name a specific alternative for full-page audits.

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