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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: it names the six lint categories applied and reveals that an empty event list plus productType silently switches to starter-plan generation rather than failing. That mode-switch is the kind of thing an agent would otherwise get wrong. It does not disclose finding severity or the shape of the result, which is the 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 primary lint behavior and its check list come first, and the conditional drafting mode is placed second so it reads as a branch rather than a competing purpose.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does not: an agent cannot tell whether it gets a findings list with severities, a rewritten plan, or both, nor how conflicts between text and events are handled. For a 3-parameter, multi-mode tool this is an adequate but incomplete definition.

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 baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds syntax the schema omits: the 'project_created (template, source)' line format that shows how properties are expressed inline, and the semantics of productType (draft mode trigger plus the product taxonomy). It does not resolve what happens if both text and events are supplied.

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 (product analytics tracking plan) and enumerates the exact defect classes checked: naming-style mixing, vague events, UI-element names, near-duplicates, tense/order drift, personal data in properties. The resource is unmistakably distinct from the sibling linters (lint_design_feedback, lint_research_questions, lint_token_names), and the second sentence discloses a second mode (drafting a starter plan from productType).

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?

Clear about the two usage modes and the condition that selects the drafting mode ('with no events and a productType'). Gives a concrete input example so an agent knows the expected shape of the lint input. No explicit when-not or 'use X instead' routing against siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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