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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond those: the operation is stateless, has no repository/local context, and is paid per call. This is transparent without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences convey purpose, scope, statelessness, output, and cost with no filler. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information.

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 low-complexity tool with two well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns at a high level, constraints on context, and the paid nature, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('config' and 'kind'). The description adds little beyond confirming the config is provided by the caller and listing supported config kinds, which mostly mirrors the schema's own optional hint values.

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 states a specific action ('review'), a specific resource ('infrastructure configuration'), and names the supported formats (YAML, Docker Compose, Kubernetes, Terraform). It also states the output (risks, hardening, concrete fixes), making it clearly distinct from generic sibling review tools like paid_review_snippet.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: the caller provides configuration text, the review is stateless, and no repository or local context is used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the scope is clear enough to guide selection.

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