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

The description discloses genuinely useful behaviour beyond annotations: it is a paid x402 endpoint at 0.01 USDC requiring an X-Bazaar-Key header, and it pins protocol_version 2025-06-18. That auth/pricing context is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot express, though it never explains what a result looks like (pass/fail vs. findings list) or why readOnlyHint=false on what reads like a pure validation call.

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 tight sentence with the price tag front-loaded so cost is visible before commitment. Slightly cluttered by the bracketed payment syntax, but no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter lint with no output schema, the description leaves two real gaps: how transport/protocol_version are actually supplied when only tool_name appears in the schema, and what the response contains. An agent can guess the intent but not the call shape or the return contract.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does name fields (description, transport, protocol_version) that are absent from the schema properties, but because additionalProperties is true it is unclear whether those are separate top-level arguments or members of the definition being linted — the added detail raises a question rather than resolving one.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: validate an MCP server tool definition for Streamable HTTP MCP compatibility, naming protocol_version 2025-06-18. It is clearly an MCP-specific linter, but it never distinguishes itself from near-neighbours like openapi_tool_lint, agent_card_lint, or json_schema_lint, so an agent must infer which linter applies to which artifact.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource named ('MCP server tool definition'); there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named among the many *_lint siblings. The payment precondition is stated as a header name but the workflow (how to obtain X-Bazaar-Key) is not.

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