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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by stating "Content is not stored" and enumerating the specific validation categories, though it does not describe return shape or severity levels.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded: it first states what is checked, then lists the risk categories, then closes with the privacy note. Every clause contributes, though the long inline list is slightly less scannable than a structured breakdown.

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?

The tool is a read-only checker with no output schema and two parameters. The description explains what it checks but not what the caller receives—such as whether it returns violations with line numbers, severities, or a pass/fail summary—which is a notable gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description reinforces the source types (YAML/properties/env) that map to the format enum but adds no additional format syntax or defaulting details 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?

The description states a specific verb ("Checks") and resource scope (application.yml, application.properties, or environment variables), and it names concrete issue categories. It is clearly about configuration validation rather than code or documentation, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling check_code tool.

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?

The usage is implied by the resource types and the listed checks, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over check_code or other siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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