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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces that nothing is published and no state changes occur. It adds useful behavioral context by stating this is the same check as rover graph lint/subgraph lint and explaining the baseSdl diff behavior.

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 the core purpose and remains reasonably compact. The list of returned diagnostic fields is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it does not substantially bloat the definition.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and a straightforward three-parameter input, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers purpose, non-mutating behavior, parameter intent, and the optional diff use case.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description explains baseSdl's purpose and says to provide graphId and SDL. However, graphId has no schema description and the description does not add format or constraint details beyond the schema for sdl/baseSdl.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Lint a GraphQL schema document against the graph's lint rules." It also clarifies scope with "Nothing is published and no state changes," but it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as GetLintResults or RunSchemaCheck to differentiate when this should be used instead.

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?

It gives clear usage context: provide graphId and sdl, optionally baseSdl to restrict results to diagnostics introduced by the new schema. The no-publish/no-state-change note helps distinguish it from mutation-oriented tools, though it does not explicitly describe alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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