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

Beyond idempotentHint, the description discloses cost ('PAID: 800 micro-dollar service credits per successful call'), authentication requirements ('private Authorization header'), and the billing implication of a new requestId. This gives an agent the operational consequences of calling the tool, which annotations do not convey.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying necessary operational information, with the purpose first and no filler. Billing, prerequisites, and recovery are packed efficiently.

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?

The description covers all non-schema information an agent needs to invoke correctly: preparation call, credits, auth, billing, and recovery behavior. With an output schema present, return values don't need explanation.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description adds important requestId semantics: 'Reuse prepared arguments for recovery; a new requestId is a new billable operation.' It also maps the overall input to 'agent configuration text.' However, it does not elaborate on maxPriceMicroUsd beyond what the schema already states, so it stops short of a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Review agent configuration text with five fixed risk heuristics.' This distinguishes it from sibling audits like agents_env_template_check or agents_tool_name_conflicts by scoping to agent configuration text with a fixed heuristic set.

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?

It provides clear prerequisites and sequencing: 'First use agent_utilities_prepare for this tool,' plus 'Requires existing credits and a private Authorization header.' It also instructs on recovery vs new operations. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it misses the top tier.

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