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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the concrete validation surface (manifest, naming, class, perform method, secrets) and the fact that it emits fixable findings, though it says nothing about failure modes or how findings are shaped.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the rule inventory is front-loaded and the usage loop follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the check scope and that it returns actionable findings via 'fix anything it reports'. A minor gap remains on exactly what a pass/fail response looks like, but the annotations cover the safety dimension.

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 parameters (code as full Python source, filename ending in _agent.py) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing that the input must be a 'finished' file, which is marginal beyond the schema's own text.

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 (checks) and resource (a finished agent file) and enumerates the exact rule set it validates: manifest, naming, class, perform method, and hardcoded secrets. This clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like get_agent_code, get_agent_template, and find_agents, which fetch rather than validate.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('call it on every agent you write') plus a workflow loop ('fix anything it reports, and call it again until it passes'), which is real actionable guidance. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternative tool or any condition under which you would skip it.

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