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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the scope of checks (name, description, structure, metadata), but says nothing about the report shape or whether findings are auto-fixed — relevant since fix_diagnostics is a sibling.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and target, with the rule scope appended after the dash. Nothing is padded and nothing is redundant.

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?

A two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema needs modest coverage, and the description identifies what is measured. It still omits whether results are pass/fail or diagnostic lists, and whether fixing is possible here, which matters for an agent deciding to act on the output.

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 would be 3, but the description does real work: it clarifies that the input is a SKILL.md markdown document with YAML frontmatter, whereas the schema text generically says 'OpenAPI, AsyncAPI, Arazzo or JSON Schema'. That resolves a genuine ambiguity the schema leaves. The optional context parameter is still undescribed in the prose.

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?

A specific verb (Lint) plus a specific resource (an agent SKILL.md with YAML frontmatter) and the rule set it checks against (API Commons skill rules: name, description, structure, metadata). It is clearly not validate_api or test_ruleset, though it never names the sibling it complements.

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 only implied: you lint a SKILL.md before publishing or to check conformance. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like validate_api, test_ruleset, or the nearby fix_diagnostics for acting on findings.

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