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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it sets expectations that checks are keyword-based ('report what is written down, not what is enforced'), names extra detections (live-looking API keys, stale hardcoded URLs/IDs), and states 'nothing is stored.' What it does not describe is the shape of the findings returned, which keeps it at a 4.

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 purpose, then the important caveat, then the side detections and the input instruction - the ordering is good and every sentence earns its place. The parenthetical safeguard list is slightly list-heavy but still tight overall.

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, no-output-schema lint tool, the description covers input, what is checked, detection categories, and the key limitation of keyword matching. The only gap is how results are surfaced back to the caller, which prevents a 5 but is minor given the read-only nature.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'text' as the full file contents. The description reinforces this ('Pass the file's text') and adds a privacy note, but adds no format/size constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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?

Specific verb (Check/lint) plus a specific resource (agent rules files) with concrete examples (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, system prompt) and the exact scope of checks (12 named safeguards). An agent knows precisely what this does without inspecting anything else.

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?

Clear context for when to use it - on a rules file for an unattended agent - and it tells the caller exactly what to supply ('Pass the file's text'). There are no sibling tools to differentiate against and no explicit when-not-to-use, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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