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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that the tool returns JSON with positioned findings and severity, and 'Lint' implies a non-mutating analysis operation. Yet it does not clarify what 'positioned' means precisely, possible side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

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?

A single sentence delivers the core purpose and the key output characteristic with no filler. The action, target, and result are all front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential inputs and outputs: raw EPL/EPL2 code in, positioned severity findings as JSON out. It could add a little more detail about finding structure or when validation is useful, but the core information needed to call it is present.

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% because the only parameter, 'epl', is described as 'Raw EPL/EPL2 code'. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond confirming the code format, so the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb ('Lint'), a specific resource ('EPL/EPL2 label code'), and the output shape ('positioned findings with severity as JSON'). This distinguishes it from sibling validators and preview tools by language and function.

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 use for EPL/EPL2 validation, which differentiates it from cpcl_validate, tspl_validate, and zpl_validate. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, mention validation before previewing, or note any exclusions.

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