justhandled_tool_description_contract_linter

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 does disclose a key side effect—cost ($0.05 USDC on Base mainnet)—and lists what the linter checks. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what the output/report format is, or any failure modes beyond the cost.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the cost detail. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 is a simple linter with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and cost, and the linting dimensions are useful. It does not specify the output format or error behavior, but these are reasonably implied by the 'linter' framing, making it nearly 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 schema provides only structural details for 'tools' (array of objects with name/description), and description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the array contains structured tool descriptions and names the aspects that will be linted, giving meaningful semantic context beyond the raw 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lint') and object ('structured tool descriptions'), and enumerates the exact dimensions checked: bounded purpose, inputs, outputs, side effects, failure modes, cost, and idempotency. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like justhandled_tool_call_contract_auditor, which targets call contracts rather than descriptions.

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 clear usage context: use when you need to lint structured tool descriptions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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