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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: relative links are resolved on disk and external http(s) links are never fetched, which signals a purely local, network-free operation. It stops short of stating read-only nature, output/exit semantics, or failure behavior for an unreadable path.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and checks, then the scope caveat. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 description covers what is checked and what is not fetched, which is the key scope question. But with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the result shape and failure behavior unspecified, making it only minimally adequate for correct invocation.

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 (filePath, readmeChecks) are already documented, including the README default heuristic. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (lint) and resource (Markdown file) plus the concrete checks performed: broken relative links, heading hierarchy, empty links, README issues. The single-file scope is clear, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling lint_markdown_tree beyond the singular 'file' framing.

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?

'Local files only' and the note that external http(s) links are not fetched implicitly bound when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit contrast with lint_markdown_tree (whole tree/directory), so the agent must infer which tool to pick when both could apply.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well for a read-only scan tool: it discloses skip patterns (node_modules/.git), that only local files are considered, and that relative links are validated on disk while http(s) links are not fetched. It omits traversal/depth behavior, failure semantics for broken links, and output shape, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: scope, file-access constraint, and link-checking behavior. Front-loaded with the primary action and no filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers scope, skip rules, and link-checking semantics adequately. Gaps remain around the readmeChecks flag and maxFiles behavior, which an agent would have to guess from the schema alone.

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 75%, so two parameters (readmeChecks, maxFiles) and the dirPath alias are documented only in the schema. The description clarifies that the root target is a directory but adds no meaning for the remaining parameters, so it neither compensates for nor regresses the baseline.

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?

Specific verb (lint) and resource (all Markdown files under a directory), with explicit scope that separates it from the single-file sibling. It does not name lint_markdown directly, so the differentiation is inferred from 'tree' wording rather than stated.

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 recursive/all-files framing implies when this tool is appropriate versus a single-file linter, and 'Local files only' bounds the use case. However, it never explicitly names lint_markdown or the condition that should route an agent to it, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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