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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it is 'deterministic — never rendered, no AI', mentions it catches specific errors, and includes cost and size limits. Annotations already indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and description reinforces this.

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 and packed with information, but somewhat long and could be better structured. It front-loads the purpose and then lists details, which is adequate.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many checks, output schema exists), the description covers key aspects: what it does, what it catches, size limit, cost, and special input format. It is thorough and leaves little ambiguity.

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 schema describes 'code' as Liquid source, but the description adds that it can also receive bare schema JSON to test just a schema, providing additional usage context beyond the schema's description.

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 verb (lint) and resource (Liquid/Shopify theme code) and distinguishes from sibling lint tools for other languages. It enumerates specific bugs it catches, making the purpose very specific.

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 implies usage for linting Liquid code and explicitly mentions a special use case (POST bare schema JSON). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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