Lint for review readiness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists specific checks performed, giving a clear behavioral picture. However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only or what the output format is, so it's not a perfect 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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, specific checks, and relationship to validation. No wasted words, and the first sentence is front-loaded with an action verb and resource.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, checks, and relationship to validate. Minor gap: it doesn't mention the expected output or return format, so a small part of the behavior is unspecified.

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 the parameter is fully documented by the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Checks a Zapier integration against common app-review blockers' with specific examples (e.g., missing sample data, unlabeled input fields, version mismatches), and distinguishes it from `zapier validate` by noting it complements rather than replaces, differentiating it from the sibling validate_integration.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (check for review blockers) and provides an exclusion ('Complements (does not replace) `zapier validate`'), giving clear guidance on when not to rely on it as a substitute for validation.

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