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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the high-level purpose. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it explain what 'semantic drift' means or what kind of output the user should expect. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs analysis.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise and contains no redundant information.

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 the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose but lacks context on return values, behavior, or when to choose this tool. For a simple read-only analysis tool, this is acceptable but not thorough enough to fully guide an agent.

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 100% coverage for both parameters, with clear descriptions for 'code' and 'language'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's specific action ('Analyze a code snippet') and its purpose ('quality issues and semantic drift'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'compare' and 'install' which suggest different operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where 'compare' or 'install' would be more appropriate. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose.

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