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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it discloses the return semantics ('fixed or still present for each one') and a cost trait ('Free: it never counts against the user's quota'). This is meaningful added value over the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what to pass, what it returns, and cost/usage. The core action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 rich annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the input pairing convention, the return semantics, and the quota context. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that files must use the same paths as the original review and that the findings are passed alongside them, clarifying the pairing relationship between the two parameters.

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 (re-check/verify) and resource (findings from an earlier Rams review against updated code), and clearly separates it from the finding-producing sibling review_files. An agent can tell this is the follow-up verification tool 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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance ('Use it after you fix the issues') and the precondition that files must be passed under the same paths as the original review. It does not explicitly name review_files as the source of the issues, but the phrase 'as returned by review_files' in the schema and 'earlier Rams review' make the context clear.

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