Lint naming conventions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description echoes 'Pure read' which adds no new behavioral insight. It does add useful context about detection logic and return fields, which provides moderate extra transparency beyond the annotations.

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 a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then explains detection details and return structure. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or filler content.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool detects and returns. It might be missing limits on findings or performance notes, but for a naming lint tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 description adds meaning to the required 'schema' parameter (which lacks a description in the schema) by stating the tool lints naming in a schema. For the 'database' parameter, the schema already provides a thorough description. Overall, the description compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lint') and clearly identifies the resource ('table / column / index naming in a schema'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_indexes or list_tables by focusing on naming convention analysis, not mere listing.

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 when to use (to check naming consistency) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. No exclusion criteria or sibling comparisons are provided, so the guidance is merely implied.

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