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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by noting it does not consume review quota and that it returns per-finding status. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail any edge cases or limitations beyond the schema's max items.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance and cost/impact. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and both parameters documented, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage timing, and key behavioral trait (no quota). It is complete for a simple verification tool with clear prerequisites.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), so the description adds little extra meaning. It clarifies that 'issues' come from review_files, which is a useful hint, but that is inferable from the tool's context. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Re-check') and resource ('previous review_files findings against updated file contents'), and clearly distinguishes it from the siblings by contrasting with a 'full re-review'. It also indicates the output ('Returns fixed vs still-present per finding'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says 'Use after applying fixes', providing a clear when-to-use condition. It also frames the tool as 'cheaper and faster than a full re-review' and notes it 'does NOT consume review quota', which implies when it is preferred. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for initial reviews), so it falls short of a 5.

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