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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that it returns an issue list with severity, which is useful, but says nothing about malformed YAML handling, whether the check set is exhaustive, or whether findings are blocking — so this is only modest added value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the detected issue classes listed compactly. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent what the lint covers.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. It is nearly complete for a deterministic read-only linter, with only minor gaps around invalid-input behavior.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Kubernetes manifest YAML content'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description confirms the input is YAML but adds no syntax, encoding, or multi-document guidance beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline 3 for a fully documented single-parameter tool.

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 (Lint) and resource (Kubernetes manifest YAML) and enumerates the exact classes of issues detected (resource limits, health checks, :latest tags, privileged containers), which makes the tool's scope concrete. It separates itself implicitly from dockerfile-linter by naming the artifact type, but never explicitly differentiates from that sibling or states scope limits (e.g., only these four checks).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no naming of alternatives such as dockerfile-linter or detect-secrets-scanner. The enumerated checks imply the domain but leave the agent to infer when this tool is the right call versus a neighboring linter.

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