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 by structured data. The description still adds value by asserting explicitly that 'Nothing is published and no state changes', and by naming the CLI check equivalence and the baseSdl diff semantics.

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: what it does and returns, the CLI equivalence and safety note, then the parameter guidance. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained; the description still usefully lists the diagnostic fields and count fields. For a 3-param, read-only tool this is near-complete, missing only a description for graphId and explicit sibling-routing guidance.

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%: sdl and baseSdl are documented in the schema, but graphId has no description anywhere. The description adds the SDL format requirement ('as SDL') and the baseSdl diff behavior, which roughly matches the schema text rather than exceeding it. 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?

States a specific verb (lint) and resource (a GraphQL schema document), and describes the return payload's shape. Distinguishes itself from siblings like RunSchemaCheck and ValidateOperations by stating it runs the same rules as `rover graph lint`/`rover subgraph lint`.

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?

Implies usage by drawing an equivalence to `rover graph lint` and by describing baseSdl as an optional diff mode, but never states when to prefer this tool over RunSchemaCheck or GetLintResults. The when/when-not is left for the agent to infer.

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