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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: deterministic/no-LLM behavior, the 50-ticket batch cap, type-aware rules, an optional strict profile, and the per-ticket severity+fix output shape. This is unusually complete disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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-loaded with the purpose and sibling exclusion, then the actionable payload. The middle run-on list of rule categories is dense but each item adds real signal; nothing is filler.

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 available, the description supplies the return contract (per-ticket findings with severity and concrete fixes, score, grade, ready/needs_work verdict, batch summary). For a nested-object, zero-required-param tool this leaves nothing material unexplained.

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 67%, and the description compensates by explaining the batch cap, the singular-vs-plural alternatives, and that 'strict' is a stricter rule profile — semantics the bare enum doesn't convey. The 'missing fields ARE findings' nuance is also echoed, reinforcing the schema's own note.

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 ('Full Jira-ticket quality linter') plus explicit scope ('whole ticket, not just AC') and names the sibling that handles the narrower job. The agent can distinguish it from acceptance_criteria_validator and story_lint without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the AC-only case to acceptance_criteria_validator, and the batch-vs-single usage is stated ('POST one ticket or a batch (max 50)'). It stops short of stating when *not* to lint at all, but the primary sibling decision is resolved in the text.

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