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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it works on 'any source code or text' and what the result contains, but says nothing about scanning limits, custom-tag merge behavior, or context truncation beyond what the schema hints at.

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 tight sentences: capability first, return shape second, motivation last. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to frame the capability, which it does. Minor gap: it lists the tag set but omits XXX, which the schema lists as part of the default set.

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%, so the baseline applies; the description merely restates that custom tags are supported and that line text is returned. It adds no syntax, case-sensitivity, or default-set detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb 'Extract' plus the exact tag set and the return payload (line numbers, tag types, message text). It is clearly distinguishable from nearby tools like count_code_lines or detect_secrets, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

'Essential for technical debt auditing' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. detect_secrets for secrets, count_code_lines for metrics). The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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