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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the heuristic, pattern-matching nature and lists all 10 checks, providing good transparency into what the tool does and its limitations. No mention of side effects, but it is a read-only linter.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently lists the ten checks. Every part adds value; no extraneous words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and scope but does not describe the return format or output. Given no output schema, some guidance on what the agent can expect would be helpful.

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% with the single parameter well-described. The description does not add new details about the parameter format beyond what the schema provides, but it explains the context of the check. 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?

The description clearly states the tool is a heuristic checker for CLAUDE.md-style constitution files, specifies 10 specific checks, and differentiates itself from comprehension tools. It is a specific verb+resource combination with no ambiguity.

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 implies when to use the tool (for linting constitution files) and includes a limitation ('pattern-matching, not comprehension'), which guides expectations. However, no explicit when-not or alternatives are given, though there are no sibling tools.

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