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

Annotations already cover safety (write, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the assignee must be a verified principal, the assignment is contingent on acceptance, and signing authority stays with the caller's wallet on a first-party page. It stops short of explaining repeat-call behavior or failure modes for a non-idempotent write.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The authority-model sentence is slightly indirect but earns its place by clarifying that delegation does not transfer signing power.

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 an open-world, non-idempotent mutation with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers the conceptual model but omits practical details: what the caller gets back, what happens after assignment, and error/precondition behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% across two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'id' is the review task and 'assignee_principal' is the agent, adding the qualifier 'verified', but gives no format, sourcing, or constraints (e.g., where to look up a principal id).

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Assign your review task to a verified agent principal.' Clearly a delegation action, distinguishable from accept_review_task (the counterpart step) and list_review_tasks. Not explicitly named against siblings, keeping it at 4.

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?

Implies the workflow by stating 'The agent must accept readiness,' which signals a two-step handoff pairing with accept_review_task. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of other review-task tools, nor does it state prerequisites such as where the principal identifier comes from.

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