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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by naming the five specific classes of problems detected, which is behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey, though it says nothing about whether issues are returned as a report, warnings, or a pass/fail verdict.

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?

A single colon-led sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a tight enumeration. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not say what the agent receives back (list of issues with positions? a boolean? errors that block export?). For a validation tool, the shape of the result is the main thing an agent needs and it is left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter ('project') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it accepts an id or exact name. The description adds no further meaning about that parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 verb 'lint' plus the resource 'timeline' is specific, and the enumerated checks (overlaps, gaps, off-screen text, clips past source, missing media) make the operation concrete. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'check_timeline', leaving the agent unsure which of the two near-identical validators to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus check_timeline, print_timeline, or project_status, and no prerequisites or timing guidance (e.g. before export). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the list of checks.

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