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

The price disclosure ($0.10 per call) is real behavioral context not present in the annotations, and it matters because idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false mean repeated calls are billable. It stops short of explaining latency, failure modes, or that the result is a paid one-shot analysis.

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, purpose front-loaded, pricing before the usage hint. Nothing is padded, though the PR framing sentence is the weakest of the three in information density.

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 review tool with no output schema and no annotated safety profile beyond false flags, it never says what a review returns — a list of issues, a verdict, a score, or prose — nor whether outputs are bounded by input length. The agent can call it but cannot anticipate or plan around the result.

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 0% for all three parameters, and the description does not compensate at all — it says nothing about what 'context' should contain or whether 'language' is an identifier, a file extension, or free text. Only the required 'code' parameter is self-evident from its name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus scope: review a code snippet for bugs, risks and clarity. That distinguishes it from data-extraction siblings like fikra_explain_json or fikra_debug_sql, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"A second pass before opening a pull request" implies a usage context but not a decision rule: no exclusions, no alternatives, and no guidance on when a full review is overkill versus fikra_debug_sql or fikra_generate_unit_tests.

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