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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description does go further by describing what happens to each note (categorization, missing-info explanation, OIS skeleton, readiness share), which is meaningful behavioral detail beyond the 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?

Three dense sentences: purpose, per-note processing, and aggregate output, in that order. Every clause carries information, though the long enumeration of categories and the OIS skeleton is slightly list-heavy in a single sentence.

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 a single fully-described parameter, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description steps in to explain the shape of the result: per-note category, missing-info diagnosis, OIS skeleton for weak notes, and a readiness share. That is enough for an agent to call it and interpret what comes back.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already carries the burden ('one note per line, or paragraphs'). The description adds no further syntax guidance but doesn't need to, making the baseline 3 the floor; the taxonomy hints at expected input granularity, nudging it slightly above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lint') and resource ('design critique') and enumerates the classification taxonomy, which makes clear what the tool actually produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby lint_* siblings such as lint_design_md or plan_critique, leaving that separation to the agent.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it is for reviewing design critique notes before acting on them. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative like plan_critique for a different review stage.

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