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

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses important result semantics: only an exact merged commit is published, proposed/reviewed work is never public, rejection feedback may be truncated, and rechecking will not retrieve omitted findings. These are material behavioral constraints an agent would otherwise miss.

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 definition is three compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted text. Each sentence adds either purpose or a meaningful behavioral caveat.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the key status semantics and truncation caveat well. It is only slightly incomplete because it does not explain where the receipt comes from or route the agent away from related sibling tools.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description clarifies that the receipt is opaque and authorizes the lookup. It does not explain how to obtain a receipt or add format details, leaving the schema pattern to carry the rest.

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 and resource: 'Return the review state of a proposal.' It is clearly not a create/update/search tool, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like knowledge_propose or knowledge_get.

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 implies that the tool is used to check proposal status via a receipt, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The note about rechecking status addresses repeat behavior, not tool selection.

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