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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), lowering the bar. The description still adds genuine behavioral content: it is free, it operates on OpenAI-format definitions, and it discloses the specific defect classes it reports. It does not state the output shape, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The purpose and the precise detection list are front-loaded, and the usage clause is short and last. Every clause earns its place.

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, single-parameter, non-destructive lint tool with full schema documentation, the description is nearly self-sufficient. Since no output schema exists, a sentence on the shape of the lint report would close the last gap, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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% and the single 'tools' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the maxItems=12 bound and the nested shape. The description's "(OpenAI format)" corroborates but does not extend the schema, 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?

Specific verb (lint) plus specific resource (AI agent function-calling tool definitions in OpenAI format), and it enumerates exactly what it detects: missing/vague descriptions, untyped or undocumented parameters, undeclared required fields, unformatted date fields. No sibling comes close to this behavior, so an agent can route unambiguously.

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?

"Use when someone builds or debugs an agent that calls tools" gives a clear triggering context. It stops short of explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the sibling list contains no competing tool, so the missing exclusion set costs little.

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