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

Goes well past the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing two real behavioral traits: the checks are keyword-based and report what is written, not what is enforced (a genuine limitation), and nothing is stored (privacy/data-handling). It also specifies extra detections beyond the headline safeguards (live-looking API keys, stale URLs/IDs).

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the caveat about keyword checking, then the input/retention note. No filler or restated name.

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-string, read-only lint tool without an output schema, the description supplies enough: what gets checked, the keyword-based nature of the verdict, and that input is not persisted. A brief sense of the report shape (per-safeguard pass/fail) would make it fully self-contained.

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 100% and the single 'text' parameter is fully documented there, so the description's 'Pass the file's text; nothing is stored' adds only marginal meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

Names a specific verb (lint/check) and resource (agent rules file), then enumerates concrete targets: CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, system prompts, 12 safeguards like kill switch, spending limit, and secrets. An agent immediately knows what the tool inspects and what it produces.

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 intended context is clear — bring a rules file's text to have it audited for unattended-agent safeguards — and the tool asserts itself as the only relevant one (no siblings). It does not state explicit preconditions or when-not to use it, keeping it 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.