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

Goes far beyond annotations: explains concurrency control (409 on mismatch), the self-approval prohibition, and the subtle per-owner quorum rule ('approvals count once per owner'). These are non-obvious business rules that would otherwise cause silent failures.

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 and verdicts, then dives into the complex approval rules. The sentence about 'recorded but does not count' is a bit dense but necessary for correctness. No pointless fluff.

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 the intents, concurrency, and approval semantics well. It doesn't need to explain return values because an output schema exists. It could mention the posting location ('Posted to the room') is included, so it covers where the review goes. Overall complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema already defines most parameters. The description adds critical semantics: expected_revision must match (adding a concurrency constraint beyond 'the revision you reviewed'), and explains the effect of verdict values (request changes with a note). It doesn't explicitly define body limits, but schema does.

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+resource ('Review one exact revision of a proposal') and enumerates the three verdicts. Distinguishes from siblings like city_room_propose and city_room_proposals by being the review action, not the creation or listing.

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?

Clearly signals when to use it with the verdict choices and the concurrency condition (expected_revision must match current). However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name an alternative for reading proposals (e.g., city_room_proposal/proposals).

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