audit_typography

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond those annotations by disclosing the headless-Chromium dependency for URL mode and listing the exact report shape, including findings with rule, severity, message, and fix. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Each sentence serves a purpose: scope, input modes, report contents, and distinction from a sibling tool. The report breakdown into (a), (b), and (c) is compact and readable without losing necessary specificity.

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 audit tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it names both modes, the external Chromium requirement should not return any malicious URL, and it enumerates the return fields (scale, line_height, weight_ladder, nodes_analyzed, findings). The only minor ambiguity is behavior when neither input is provided, but the 'or' wording sufficiently implies that at least one mode is expected.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully, which sets a high baseline. The description adds value by framing URL and nodes as alternative modes, telling agents to pass 'a URL or a pre-collected snapshot,' which clarifies how to decide which parameter to populate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Audit the typographic SCALE...', then enumerates exactly what it reports (modular scale, line-height consistency, weight ladder). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from audit_page's pass/fail typography checks, so an agent can select it correctly among sibling audit tools.

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 gives two clear input modes — a rendered page via URL or a pre-collected nodes snapshot — and notes that 'URL mode requires headless chromium.' It also says the tool goes beyond audit_page's pass/fail typography checks, providing useful alternative context, but it does not fully spell out when-not-to-use conditions.

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