lint_micar_whitepaper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the result is 'cited candidate findings pending human review' and the tool requires the optional `lint` extra, degrading to an install hint when absent — a real prerequisite/edge-case disclosure.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then output semantics, then the dependency caveat. No filler or repetition of the name.

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 values need not be described. The description still covers the key operational facts an agent needs before calling: what it checks, that findings are candidates needing human review, and the optional-extra prerequisite with fallback behavior.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema says nothing about `whitepaper_json`. The description partly compensates by marking the input as JSON ('draft MiCAR white paper (JSON)'), but it gives no shape, encoding, or required-fields guidance.

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) plus a specific resource (draft MiCAR white paper as JSON) and the rule set it checks against (Annex I-III). None of the siblings (register search/summary/changes, AI Act classification) overlap with linting, so the agent can route to it 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: use it when you have a draft white paper to check. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., why not just read the Annex rules manually), so it stops at implied context.

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