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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful context: the result is cached for 60 seconds and validated is true only when required checks passed on the exact commit the room created. It quantifies the cache window, which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the state/validated semantics. Every sentence carries information; the only mild density cost is the run-on state enumeration, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description still clarifies the important output semantics (the four state values, what validated means). Complete for calling and interpreting the tool, though it could tie usage to a sibling more explicitly.

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 room_id and proposal are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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: reads the check runs and commit statuses GitHub reports for a proposal's pull request head commit. The scope (PR head commit) is precise enough to separate it from room-read siblings. It stops short of naming a competing sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied (check whether a proposal's CI has passed) and it notes task_evidence can feed a room task result, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many city_room_task_* siblings. Adequate but inferential.

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