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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the tool's scope (lints the request only), potential consequences ('unsafe can lose money or make you report something untrue'), and its limitations (cannot see verification branch logic). This goes well beyond a simple statement and fully discloses what the tool does and does not do.

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 dense but not verbose. It front-loads the core action ('Post the request...') and then adds valuable instructions and caveats in a structured way. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, when to use, safety warning, and limitation. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It partially does: 'get back what is missing or unsafe, with the concrete consequence' and mentions 'Findings marked unsafe.' This is sufficient for a 2-parameter lint tool, though a bit more detail on the exact output structure would make it fully complete.

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 (endpoint and payload) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema states, though it reinforces the intent of 'the request you INTEND to make.' Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Post the request you INTEND to make and get back what is missing or unsafe, with the concrete consequence.' It uses a specific verb ('Post') and resource ('the request'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing that 'it lints the REQUEST only' and cannot verify integration logic, which separates it from broader preflight/verification tools.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run this before your first live execute.' It also gives when-not-to-use context: 'A clean lint does NOT mean your integration is correct' and warns against proceeding with unsafe findings. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., robyn_preflight_full) explicitly, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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