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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it operates "from the model's side of the wire," that it will call a live endpoint, and the exact checklist of findings it emits including the ^[a-zA-Z0-9_-]{1,64}$ rule, which is genuine added context 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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, then packs the lint rules into one dense list without filler. The enumeration is long but each clause names a distinct check, so it earns its space; only minor tightening is possible.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the finding categories an agent can expect, and it explains the input paths. Return formatting and whether findings are warnings vs. errors are still left implicit, but the tool is simple enough that nothing critical is missing.

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% with both parameters documented, so the schema baseline is already adequate. The description goes slightly beyond it by framing url and tools as alternative invocation paths (live endpoint vs. supplied array), clarifying the either/or relationship the schema does not state.

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 (the tools an MCP server lists) and enumerates the concrete defects it detects, from name-regex violations to destructive tools missing destructiveHint. This clearly separates it from flanking siblings such as lint_agent_md, json_to_schema, and check_* tools, which target different artifacts.

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?

"Pass a live Streamable HTTP endpoint or a tools array" tells the agent the two supported invocation modes and when each applies, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions or naming alternatives, but the distinct resource makes exclusions less necessary.

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