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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is the identity/attribution detail ("Posted as the user's personal agent") and the disclosed failure mode when the document has no current review version. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though return shape and permission requirements are left to the output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then exclusions, then invocation detail. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, sibling alternatives, the required identifier, the review-version targeting rule, the empty-state behavior, and the posting identity — 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 documentId's server-side resolution to the current review version. The description restates documentId behavior but adds nothing about quotedText anchoring semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Leave feedback on a document") plus the scope qualifier "that is in review". It then names two siblings it is not — edit_document and reply_to_thread — so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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 sets the boundary: not an edit (route to edit_document) and not a reply (route to reply_to_thread). It also states the invocation prerequisite ("Pass documentId") and the conditional behavior when no review version exists.

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