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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: it suppresses sanctioned violations rather than merely reporting them, it categorizes results into expired/stale/expiring, and it frames the output as a build gate — all non-obvious semantics.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the return value follows, so an agent can extract purpose and outcome in one pass.

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 reconciliation tool with fully documented parameters, the description supplies the missing pieces: what gets suppressed, what gets surfaced, and what the result is used for. No output schema is needed because that return contract is stated inline.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the waivers file, the lint output, and the optional context. The description adds no syntax, format, or accepted-shape detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Reconcile a waivers file against lint output') and then spells out the two outcomes — suppressing sanctioned violations and surfacing expired/stale/expiring ones. It also names the artifact produced ('the effective failing set a build should gate on'), which no sibling tool claims.

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?

It gives clear context for when the tool matters — gating a build on the reconciled failing set — so the agent understands the scenario it serves. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., how it differs from validate_api or apply_overlay), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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