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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool 'may use configured Cloud Check endpoint' and 'no source is sent unless', which hints at network and privacy behavior beyond the annotations. However, the final sentence is truncated ('unless.'), leaving the disclosure incomplete.

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 uses clear 'Use:', 'Inputs:', and 'Effects:' labels for structure, but it contains a truncated final sentence ('no source is sent unless.') that dangles without completion. There is also redundant phrasing ('Use: use for') that adds noise. The dangling sentence is a significant structural flaw.

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?

For a tool with 15 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core return behavior, input constraints, and typical use cases without needing to restate schema details. It explains the tool's role in Apple-aware review and evidence support. The truncation is the only notable gap, but overall the description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

All 15 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), providing a solid baseline. The description adds meaningful constraints: 'provide source or sourcePath, not both' resolves an ambiguity not stated in the schema. It also groups 'evidence fields strengthen UI and runtime claims', which helps the agent decide which optional parameters to supply.

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 opens with 'Run an agent-callable Cloud Check against Swift or Axint TypeScript source', which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and supported languages. It also enumerates the returned artifacts (verdict, findings, next steps, repair prompt), distinguishing this cloud-based check from sibling local compile/validate/repair tools.

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 'Use:' section explicitly says 'use for Apple-aware source review and repair prompts; provide evidence for UI/runtime claims', giving concrete contexts. It does not name alternative tools as exclusions, but the cloud-check nature and the focus on Apple-specific findings implicitly separate it from axint.compile, axint.swift.validate, and axint.repair.

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