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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context by naming the returned readiness, credit impact, and review_quote fields, and by clarifying that no review is started and follow-up actions remain browser-based.

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 three tight sentences with the usage trigger front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the name or title. Every sentence contributes either selection guidance, behavioral boundaries, or return-value information.

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 two-parameter read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description names the key return values and clarifies what the tool does not do. The exact structure of readiness and credit impact is not detailed, but the schema covers the inputs and annotations cover safety.

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 both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces that selected pages are optional and ties them to review_quote, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inspect an existing Space for repository documentation updates. It distinguishes itself from start-documentation-update by explicitly saying it starts no review, but it does not clarify how it differs from the sibling get-documentation-update-status.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: use when the user wants to check an existing Space for repository documentation updates. It also sets boundaries by saying change decisions, resume, and end remain browser flows, though it does not name the closest sibling alternative for status checks.

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