lint_fec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered structurally; the description reinforces this with 'path is a local path'. It adds the return envelope ({ok, file, errors[], warnings[], stats}) and the per-error fields (rule code, count, line numbers), which is useful behavioral context. It stops short of disclosing file-size limits, encoding-mismatch handling, or how warnings differ from errors.

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: what is checked, what the input is, what comes back, then the boundary and alternative. Every clause carries distinct information, the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only linter with no output schema, the description supplies the input shape, the return shape, the error structure, and the scope limits. There is no output schema to defer to, yet return values are still explained, and the main risk (mistaking this for a full compliance check) is pre-empted.

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 coverage is 0% — the parameter is only titled 'Path' — so the description must carry the semantics, and it does: a local path to a FEC file, either .txt or a .zip containing one. That constraint (zip accepted, local only) is real meaning an agent could not infer from the schema; only the absence of path-format examples keeps it off a 5.

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 (check/lint) and resource (French FEC file), then enumerates exactly what is validated: name, encoding, separator, 18 headers and field formats. An agent knows precisely the scope of the operation without opening the schema.

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 bounds usage with 'Structural check only' and names the alternative for everything else: 'for entry balance, numbering and audit-risk analysis, use the full FEC Checker on Apify', including a URL. The when-not condition and the escalation path are both stated, not implied.

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