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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it lists the lint categories and says a suggested rewrite is provided for each problem. It stops short of describing output structure or severity, but the added behavioral context is substantial.

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?

The description is front-loaded, with the core action and scope stated immediately, followed by a compact issue list. It is dense but efficient; the only slight cost is the long enumeration, though every listed item appears relevant to the linter.

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 two-parameter, read-only linter with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it says what will be checked and that rewrites are suggested. The main omission is any explanation of how interview vs survey mode changes behavior, which an agent may need when choosing the non-default mode.

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. The description reinforces that input is one question per line, but it does not explain the interview/survey mode enum beyond the schema's 'Default interview' note, so it adds only marginal parameter meaning.

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 description gives a specific verb (lint) and resource (user research questions) and enumerates the exact issue classes it checks. It is clearly distinct from sibling copy-review or plain-language tools because it targets research interview/survey question wording.

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?

The description implies usage by saying questions should be supplied one per line and by naming interview-specific issues, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings like plain_language_check or review_microcopy. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing instructions.

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