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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the $0.10 USDC on Base price with no trial, the payment-required STOP-and-approve protocol, the prohibition on separate transfers or pasted keys, and the warning not to auto-retry an unknown-outcome authorization. That is genuinely useful operational disclosure, though it is hedged so heavily ('caching, replay/idempotency ... remain unknown') that the agent gets uncertainty rather than behavior, and error handling for an expired/invalid report_id is never stated.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the text is heavily padded with repeated disclaimers ('Not an audit or safety guarantee', 'Illustrative output excerpt, not a live result, signature, approval or guarantee') and redundancies (price stated twice, usage restated). Several sentences concern client-side payment hygiene rather than helping an agent decide to call or how to shape arguments, so signal-to-noise is poor.

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 paid, protocol-bound tool with no output schema, the description does cover the payment flow and approval gate, which is the hardest part. However, it never concretely describes the paid response beyond a cryptic excerpt ('mode':'passive_unpaid', 'unknown_count':5, methodology counters) whose mode label is confusing for a paid detail call, and it omits failure behavior for stale or unknown report_ids. Adequate on prerequisites, thin on outcomes.

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 coverage is 100% and the single report_id parameter is already fully documented, including the 'existing report IDs never refresh' constraint. The description's added value is limited to repeating the minimal input example and reinforcing freshness requirements already present in the schema, so it sits at the baseline for a high-coverage 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?

The description does state a concrete function: retrieving 'detailed passive findings and source-linked fixes from an existing, unexpired free Lint report' for a given report_id, and it explicitly disclaims scanning ('No new target request'). The verb/resource pair is clear once parsed, but it is buried under payment boilerplate and never names the free summary sibling (presumably lint_endpoint) that must be run first, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

It gives a real when-to-use ('Use when you need the full passive evidence from a current complete saved Lint report') plus a prerequisite ('Inspect the free Lint security summary first; a current complete report_id is required') and an implicit when-not (this is not an audit or a new scan). The gap is that the alternative tool is described by role rather than named, so an agent must infer which sibling produces the free summary.

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