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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds substantial value beyond that by explaining what the review checks (word limit, question coverage, evidence, commitments, placeholders, section-specific needs) and what is returned (checks, scoring criteria, and a 0-5 rubric).

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 front-loaded with the use condition, then the checks, then the return value, then the exclusion. It is dense but every clause contributes to correct selection and invocation.

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 review tool with an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers purpose, routing, checks, and return shape without needing to duplicate schema details.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by tying parameters to concrete review behavior: word_limit drives a specific check, question enables part-by-part coverage checking, and section determines what requirements are applied. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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: reviewing a draft tender answer before submission, evaluated like an evaluator would. It clearly distinguishes itself from draft_bid_response, so an agent can select it 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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition (user has a draft answer for a public tender and wants it checked before submission) and an explicit when-not-to-use with a named alternative (do not use to write a new answer; use draft_bid_response). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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