Lint OpenAPI spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by specifying the rule categories (missing operation ids, undeclared path params, broken $refs) and stating that it returns counts and findings.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and scope with a compact rule enumeration, the second states the return shape. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists so return details are covered elsewhere, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the rule set and supported formats, leaving only cross-tool routing guidance as a minor gap.

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 the url and content parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the host-restriction caveat. The description adds nothing about parameter usage, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only 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?

Names a specific verb (check/lint) and resource (OpenAPI 3 or Swagger 2 document) and enumerates the concrete rule families applied. No sibling tool does validation, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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 implied by the resource described (a spec document) but the description never states when to prefer this over, say, import_requests, nor when linting is unnecessary. No explicit triggers or exclusions are given, leaving context to inference.

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