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

Annotations already note readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds rich behavioral context: mandatory rationale landing on the timeline, exact state machine effects, and authorization restrictions, with no contradiction to 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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then verdict meanings, rationale behavior, state transitions, and restrictions. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers the invocation context, the state machine effects of each verdict, and critical authorization constraints. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and understand the outcome.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the terse schema descriptions: the criteria for 'approve' (sound plan, blast radius, rollback, verification) and for 'request_changes' (name gaps), plus the fact that rationale lands on the timeline.

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: 'Deliver a peer-review verdict on the ticket's plan', and defines both verdict values. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ticket_decide (human approval) and ticket_request_review.

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?

Explicitly covers when to use the tool (approve or request_changes on a plan awaiting review), the state transitions each verdict causes, and when not to use it (human approval cannot be recorded here; an interactive chat 'approve' is refused; the assignee cannot self-review).

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