audit_nlb_cross_zone_costs

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It confides that the tool scans NLBs and notes the cost implications, but does not disclose output format, side effects (e.g., read-only nature), or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately concise, covering purpose, cost note, safety tip, parameter details, and examples. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses a clear structure.

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 simple audit tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, and what to consider after use. Missing details like return format are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: it explains the 'regions' parameter as 'AWS regions to scan. Defaults to all common regions,' which is not present in the schema. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Finds NLBs with cross-zone load balancing enabled' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling audit tools by focusing on NLB cross-zone costs.

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 provides clear usage context (identify cost savings) and includes example queries. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the pricing note and safety advice ('Safe to disable when AZs have equal capacity') imply a follow-up action.

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