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

The description adds real value beyond annotations: output is a tri-state report, red blocks publishing, findings include evidence and fix hints, and 4.3-style findings are advisory signals for the agent to judge. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description never explains what side effect makes this a non-read-only operation (the 'sometimes ready patches' phrase hints at it but is not clarified).

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the blocking rule and output semantics come early. The '4.3-style' shorthand is jargon that assumes shared context but costs no space.

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 an output schema present, the description correctly focuses on decision semantics (severity levels, blocking behavior, advisory findings) rather than return fields. It is largely complete for a one-parameter check, though it omits any note on side effects or run frequency.

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 and schema coverage is 100%; the schema's own description already explains the prj_ format and points to push_project and connect_status for discovery. The description adds nothing about project_id, so baseline 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?

The title and description establish a specific function: a review-readiness lint that returns a green/yellow/red report. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_review, build, and check_project, though the verb 'lint' itself is never stated plainly.

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?

'Red blocks publish' implies a pre-publish gate, which is useful routing context, but the description never states when to run this versus check_project or status, nor any prerequisite (e.g. a connected project). Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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