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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add genuinely non-obvious context: processing is in-memory with nothing stored, secret values are never echoed, and results are delivered with line numbers plus a suggested fix. It stops short of describing severity levels or how issues are ordered.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and target, then a dense enumeration of check categories and the return shape. Every clause is informative, though the long comma-run check list is slightly harder to scan than a short structured list would be.

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?

A one-parameter, non-destructive tool with no output schema needs the description to cover the return shape, and it does ('returns issues with line numbers and a suggested fix'), plus data-handling guarantees. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('server.cfg text (max 256 KiB)'), so the schema carries the load. The description implies the input is config text but adds no format or framing detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb pair (parses and checks) against a named resource (an FXServer server.cfg) and enumerates the check categories, so an agent knows exactly what class of problems it surfaces. It is clearly distinct from the sibling validate_resource, which targets resource content rather than the config file.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this belongs before deploying a config, but the description never says when to call it versus check_compatibility or validate_resource, nor any exclusions. No prerequisites or conditions for invocation are given.

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