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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the GET route and $0.01 cost, plus a hint that it returns patched JSON fixes, but it does not explain the response or payment interaction in detail.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the core purpose and endpoint front-loaded. The brevity is mostly efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 two-parameter paid lint tool with rich annotations and schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin. It does not describe return values or the patch/fix output, and with no output schema present that leaves a meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both the url and payment parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description only indirectly references the url parameter via the GET query string and adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource: linting an A2A/MCP protocol card. It is distinguishable from most siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools such as get_agent_card or check_webmcp, and "patched JSON fixes" is vague.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The endpoint and price are usage context, but they do not tell an agent when this lint is the right choice.

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