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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations lack: it validates only the subset of commands Labelixa implements, and a clean result does not guarantee a specific printer accepts the job. It also notes findings carry position and severity, though the output schema already carries return shape.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the limitation, then the workflow ordering. Every sentence earns its place and none repeats structured data.

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 single-parameter lint tool with a full annotations block and an output schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what is checked, the limits of a clean result, and the prerequisite tool. Nothing material 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?

Only one parameter ('cpcl': 'Raw CPCL code') with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no format, encoding, or size guidance beyond what the schema provides, making a baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('Lint CPCL label code') and immediately scopes it to the command set Labelixa implements. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling epl_validate/tspl_validate/zpl_validate family without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit sequencing advice: 'Run this before cpcl_preview' and 'if you are not sure which language the code is, call language_detect first.' Both the when-to-use and the fallback alternative are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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