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

The description discloses that the checker is pattern-matching (not comprehension) and lists the 10 checks performed. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden; it adequately informs the agent of the tool's heuristic nature and scope.

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?

A single sentence front-loaded with the main action, followed by a parenthetical list of checks. It is efficient and well-structured, though the list slightly reduces readability.

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 simple lint tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the 10 checks, and the heuristic nature. It leaves some ambiguity about the output format, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

There is one parameter ('content') with full schema coverage. The description adds context about what the tool does but does not enhance the parameter's meaning beyond the schema's description. 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 it is a heuristic checker for CLAUDE.md-style constitution files, listing 10 specific checks. It identifies the resource and action precisely, and despite no siblings, the description is self-contained and unambiguous.

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 usage for checking constitution files but provides no explicit guidance on when or when not to use it, and no alternatives are mentioned. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or conditions.

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