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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the call costs nothing, makes no upstream calls, and returns faults with line and column positions. That covers side-effect and cost profile, though it doesn't say whether the result is cached or how large inputs are handled.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is validated, followed by the return shape and the cost/side-effect guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description supplies the essentials: no cost, no upstream calls, and a return value of faults with positions. For a stateless validation tool with one well-documented parameter, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single required parameter, so the schema already documents `code`. The description adds no syntax or format detail about Brighter's language beyond restating that the code is written in it — baseline 3 applies.

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 (check) and resource (a strategy in Brighter's language), and enumerates the three things checked: syntax, semantics, and ticker tradability. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like backtest_strategy, format_strategy, and dsl_reference.

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?

"check before you backtest" gives explicit sequencing guidance and implies the backtest_strategy sibling as the follow-on action. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when checking is unnecessary, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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