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

It discloses useful side effects beyond the annotations: reviewers are notified, and the candidate remains in the To review inbox until a verdict is posted. It also states an auth requirement. However, with destructiveHint=true set in annotations, the description never explains what is destructive (e.g. whether re-requesting replaces prior reviewers or resets existing verdicts).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, then prerequisites and auth. No filler, and the ordering matches how an agent would need the information.

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 mutating, notifying tool with no output schema and a destructive hint, the description covers outcome, notification, prerequisite id resolution and auth. The remaining gap is the destructive semantics — whether existing reviews or reviewers are affected — which an agent would want before calling it.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: "named teammates" maps to reviewerIds, "optional message" flags message as optional, and the list_reviewers instruction clarifies that reviewer ids are identifiers resolved elsewhere rather than free-form names. It does not mention the 20-reviewer cap or clarify candidateId sourcing.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: ask named teammates for a verdict on a candidate, and states the resulting state change (candidate lands in the reviewer's To review inbox). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like set_candidate_review and remove_candidate_review, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 a concrete prerequisite workflow ("Resolve reviewer ids with list_reviewers first") and an auth prerequisite ("Requires OAuth or a scoped token"). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a named alternative, 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.