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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the payment model ('$0.005 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base') and lists the lint checks, but it does not state whether the content is stored or externalized, the response format, or that the operation is read-only.

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 front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact comma-separated checklist, then the price. It is dense but free of filler and appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains what is checked and the cost, but it leaves the return shape unspecified—for example, whether findings include severity, line numbers, or remediation. The single parameter is fully documented, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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?

The single required parameter 'content' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the 100 KB limit. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lint a docker-compose file.' It enumerates the exact checks performed, and the file-type specificity distinguishes it from siblings such as ciaudit_dockerfile and ciaudit_github_actions.

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 file type implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives. An agent comparing this against ciaudit_dockerfile or ciaudit_github_actions receives no direct help.

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