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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the output fields and the tag categories handled. This is consistent with annotations; no contradiction exists.

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 two concise sentences with the action and scope front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and every phrase carries meaningful information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple, non-destructive tool with full schema coverage, a read-only annotation set, and an output schema. The description adds the essential purpose and a clear use case, so the agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description mentions custom tags generically but doesn't add new details about the tags, include_context, or input parameter beyond what the schema already states. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('extract'), lists concrete tag types (TODO, FIXME, HACK, BUG, NOTE, OPTIMIZE), and states the return contents (line numbers, tag types, message text). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from sibling extractors like extract_links or extract_json.

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 description clearly identifies a primary use case ('technical debt auditing') and says it works on 'any source code or text', giving the agent context for when to select this tool. However, it does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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