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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses that code is never executed, lists specific checks (e.g., unbalanced do/end, missing return), and provides constraints (max 128 KB, cost $0.002). This adds significant context for agent 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?

The description is a single paragraph front-loaded with the core action, lists all checks efficiently, and concludes with constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description correctly focuses on input and behavioral details. It covers the tool's scope comprehensively, specifying what it catches and its limitations.

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 for the single parameter 'code' is 100%, with description already stating max 128 KB. The tool description repeats this info, adding no new meaning beyond the 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 clearly states 'Elixir lint / debug kit' and specifies it returns bugs with line numbers. The sibling tools include other language-specific lint tools, so this purpose is distinct and well-defined.

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 usage for static analysis by stating 'Deterministic static analysis — code is parsed, never executed, no AI.' It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the name and content clearly differentiate it from sibling lint tools.

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