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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds rich behavioral detail: 'three sequential checks', specific regex patterns (16), heuristic scan targets (eval(), innerHTML, etc.), Conventional Commits spec, and output types (PASS/WARN/BLOCK, blockers, warnings). This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Compound quality gate for pull requests', then a structured list of checks and output. No filler, each sentence conveys essential information. Excellent density.

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?

The tool is complex (three sequential checks) but the description covers what it does, the checks, the output format, and when to use it. Output schema exists, so return values don't need elaboration. Given the annotations and schema, this is complete.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (diff, context, commit_message). The description adds little beyond mapping diff to secret/bug checks and commit_message to linting—context is not explicitly mentioned. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.

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 clearly states the tool is a 'compound quality gate for pull requests' and enumerates three specific checks (secret detection, bug analysis, commit message linting). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_diff_bugs, detect_secrets, and lint_commit_message by being an all-in-one gate.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use before merging any code change', which gives a clear trigger for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the compound nature and the presence of sibling tools imply it's the comprehensive option. Minor gap in not naming excluded alternatives.

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