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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the return shape (ok, stats, findings with severity levels and codes, counts), clarifying that 'path' values are line numbers, and stating the billing model (2 credits per successful call, no charge for schema-rejected input). That billing and failure-cost detail is behavior an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then billing; every sentence carries information. The inline object notation for the return value is dense but readable; a slightly cleaner enumeration would be ideal, so not a 5.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the return payload, severity taxonomy, the line-number semantics of 'path', and the cost model. For a single-parameter read-only lint tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret results 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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting the 60,000-character limit and required 'text'. The description adds no syntactic guidance about the input text beyond restating what gets checked, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lints a CLAUDE.md') and enumerates the exact check categories (size, structure, @imports, leaked secrets/passwords/emails). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling linters like prompt-lint, openapi-lint, and mcp-config-validate, which target different artifacts.

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 usage context is clear: you pass CLAUDE.md text and get lint findings back, and the description notes invalid input is rejected before billing, which tells the agent to conform to the schema first. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., for other markdown files), so it does not reach a 5.

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