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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the audit uses five fixed (non-configurable) heuristics, runs free with no key/credits/wallet, and is subject to existing source and input limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and method, then pricing, then constraints. Efficient, though 'Existing source and input limits apply' is boilerplate that carries little actionable meaning.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description needn't explain returns. It is minimally complete, but leaves two gaps an agent would care about: what the five heuristics detect and how this differs from the adjacent agent-config checkers.

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 67%, and the two legacy fields (requestId, maxPriceMicroUsd) are already documented as ignored in free mode. The description's only parameter-relevant line, 'Existing source and input limits apply', vaguely gestures at the text maxLength without adding format or syntax detail, so it stays at baseline.

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 verb+resource ('Review agent configuration text') and the method ('five fixed risk heuristics'), so an agent can tell it audits config text rather than fetching or parsing it. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like agents_env_template_check or agents_tool_name_conflicts, which also target agent configuration.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond 'input limits apply', and no routing to alternatives among the many agent_* siblings. The 'FREE during validation' note is a pricing fact, not a selection condition.

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