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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the return shape, the billing model, and that schema-invalid input is rejected before billing. This is unusually transparent for a simple read-only lint tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then covers return shape and pricing, all in a compact paragraph. Every sentence adds useful information, especially the return-shape details since no output schema exists.

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?

Given a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return structure and billing behavior. Combined with complete schema coverage and clear read-only annotations, an agent has enough context to invoke it 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 required parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already explains that the document must be a JSON object, YAML must be converted first, and request bodies are capped at 64 KiB. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it checks an OpenAPI 3.0/3.1 document and enumerates the exact checks performed. This clearly distinguishes it from generic validators like json-validate and from other lint tools aimed at different artifact types.

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 intended use is implied by the resource-specific purpose, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of sibling validators or what preconditions apply beyond the schema shape. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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