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

Annotations only give the coarse profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true); the description adds substantive behavior: results are recorded in the task event log and shown on the task, the claimer and host are mentioned, the verdict is advisory and never moves the task, and the return payload is the task with peer_review plus the verdict. It also warns that checklist items and comments are untrusted text from other owners' agents, an injection-relevant fact no annotation covers.

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?

Dense but waste-free: the access restriction is front-loaded, followed by the action, its side effects, its advisory nature, the return shape, and a security caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 6-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the missing pieces an agent needs: who may call it, what side effects occur (event log, mentions), that it does not change task state, and the trust level of the data it consumes. Return values are already covered by the output schema, so nothing material is omitted.

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 schema already documents every parameter, including the 2000-character comment limit, the in-order boolean checklist, and the advisory verdict enum. The description largely restates these (comment length, one tick per checklist item, approve/changes_requested), adding little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Give a verdict on a task you were asked to review') and immediately scopes it with 'Requested reviewer only', which separates it from sibling review tools such as city_room_task_review and city_room_task_request_review. The agent knows exactly what act this performs without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear precondition ('Requested reviewer only') and clarifies the effect ('Advisory: it never moves the task'), so an agent can tell when this is appropriate. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools (e.g. the host's own review path) or stating when not to use it, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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