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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states the return format (verdict, risks, missing considerations, sequencing notes) and a notable post-condition ('Approved plans receive a Taste content certificate on-chain'). It doesn't mention latency or cost, but the main side effect is disclosed.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: purpose, timing, inputs, outputs, and post-condition. The information is front-loaded and there is no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with three clearly described parameters and an output schema. The description fully covers when to use it, what to provide, and what to expect in return, including the certificate side effect. 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% with meaningful descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by saying 'Pass the plan, the goal it serves, and any constraints,' which clarifies that the optional context parameter is for constraints. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Optional context' text.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'review your implementation or project plan before you build.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like review_code and review_content by focusing on plans, not code or content, and states the intended timing and value.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Call right after you draft a plan for a non-trivial task' and 'before any code is written.' It also explains what to pass. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops 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.