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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses per-group row caps (50), that totals count every row, the never_reviewed counter semantics, exclusion of no-longer-monitored exposures, and that owners are deliberately not served. These are real behavioral constraints an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Purpose and grouping semantics are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct information (row fields, counts, exclusions). It is information-dense but runs long, with the 'owners not served' note appended somewhat abruptly.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: row fields (exposure, team, company label, node_id, status band, disposition, next review date), group sizes, and aggregate counters. An agent knows both when to call it and what shape to expect.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does introduce a window_days value (14) that does not appear in the schema, which usefully documents the fixed horizon, though it is not defined as a caller-settable parameter.

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+resource — the credit reviews of the monitored book needing attention today, overdue ones, and those due within window_days — and scopes it precisely (groups, ordering, exclusions). It clearly separates itself from siblings such as exposure_review_history and portfolio_book by defining exactly what is and is not listed.

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 when-to-use condition is explicit: reviews needing attention today, overdue, or falling due within a 14-day window, in UTC. What it does not do is name an alternative tool for the adjacent cases (e.g. historical review data via exposure_review_history), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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