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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description goes well beyond that by itemizing exactly what the analysis returns (Flesch scores, passive voice, stacked negatives, legalese replacements, vague money wording, buried key terms, per-kind checklist, draft rewrites). It also flags the grading target and the not-legal-advice limitation, which are meaningful behavioral traits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before the long enumeration of outputs, and the boundary sentence is well placed at the end. The return-value list is dense and lengthy, but each item is substantive rather than filler.

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, so the description must explain return values and it does so exhaustively. With only two parameters, both documented in the schema, the definition supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the kind enum and the 'guessed from the text if omitted' behavior. The description's parenthetical examples of kind values largely restate the enum, so it adds little beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb (lint) and a specific resource (financial, legal and consent copy), scoped to plain-language checks with enumerated content types (fees, rates, terms, privacy notices, error/decline messages). It is distinguishable from siblings like lint_brand_voice and review_ui_copy by its regulatory/financial framing, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Clearly establishes when to use it: on disclosure copy for plain language, with a useful boundary ('A writing check, not legal or compliance advice'). It does not name sibling alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, so it falls short of 5.

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