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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing what the response contains — status states and structured findings with severity, file, line, problem, and remediation. It stops short of describing polling behavior or how long a review takes, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the status meaning and then the actionable next step. Every clause carries information — states, finding fields, and the remediation loop — with 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 no output schema and only one parameter, the description adequately covers return content and the intended workflow, which is what an agent needs to call and act on it. It could be slightly stronger by noting whether findings can be empty or whether repeated polling is expected, but nothing critical 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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter's description ('The change id write_files returned') already explains provenance. The description reinforces the link to write_files but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description states a specific resource — the status of a change submitted via write_files — and enumerates its possible states (reviewing, applied, waiting for owner) plus the findings payload. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like app_status or check_project, though the verb is phrased indirectly ('Where ... stands') rather than as an explicit action.

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 establishes the preconditions (use after sending files with write_files) and the follow-up action ('Fix the findings and send the files again with write_files'), which effectively describes the review loop. It does not explicitly state when to avoid calling it or how the state relates to alternative tools, but the workflow context is clear.

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