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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral value by enumerating the seven check categories it performs (line cap, tokens, duplicates, contradictions, TODOs, hidden chars, empty headings). It doesn't say how results are returned or whether severity gating applies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and a compact colon-delimited list; nothing is redundant. It is slightly dense but every listed check 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, two-parameter linter with no output schema, the description gives enough for correct invocation — the checks enumerated effectively foreshadow the report contents. Only return-shape and severity behavior are left unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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 both parameters are already documented; baseline is 3. The description only indirectly touches the filename parameter by naming the 200-line memory index cap, without adding format or severity semantics beyond the schema.

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 a precise resource set (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, MEMORY.md), and the enumerated checks make the scope unambiguous. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like check_ai_crawlers or manifest_cost.

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 implied by the resource type — you run it on a memory/instruction file — but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus the sibling checks, nor any prerequisites (e.g., run before committing). No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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