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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a toll and runs lints, but omits side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The agent cannot assess safety or prerequisites.

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 very short (two sentences) but includes necessary cost information. However, it lacks structure: the cost is highlighted but key details like parameter semantics and output are missing, making it too minimal for effective use.

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?

Given the simple input schema (one string param) and no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., lint results, toll amount). It only mentions 'returns the toll', leaving the agent uncertain about the primary output (lint warnings) and the toll's role.

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?

The single parameter 'code' has no description coverage (0%), and the tool description does not clarify what the parameter expects (e.g., code snippet, file path, complete program). The agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the schema's type constraint.

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 clearly identifies the tool as running rustc lints/warnings on Rust code, specifying the resource (Rust) and action (linting/warnings). It also mentions it's paid. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'cargo_check', which might perform a similar function.

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 description indicates the tool is paid (20 iron-cents), providing a cost condition. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cargo_check', nor any context for suitability. The agent receives no help in deciding between sibling tools.

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