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

Goes well beyond annotations: discloses that decisions are final (409 on already-decided), the self-decision block (403), that a review-resolved webhook fires, and that a claimed Last Price credential plus a claimed workspace are required (sandbox keys refused). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive, non-idempotent action.

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-loads the core action, then layers on the id source, decision finality, the 403 self-decision rule, webhook behavior, and auth prerequisites. Dense but well-ordered; the reviewer sentence mildly duplicates the schema 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers finality, error codes, side effects (webhook), and credential/workspace prerequisites — everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the reviewer default. The description largely restates this ('Pass action approve or reject, and reviewer... otherwise the workspace is recorded'), adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 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 (approve/reject) applied to a specific resource (one held-back Rosetta mapping) and ties the id to list_rosetta_review, cleanly distinguishing it from that sibling. An agent knows exactly what this does before 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?

Explicitly points to list_rosetta_review as the source of the id and states the key selection rule (the queuing agent/key cannot decide its own item). No guidance on when to choose approval vs rejection beyond the enum, but the operational context is clear.

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