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

The description discloses the key mutation effects beyond the annotations: it sets the last review to now, computes the next review date from next_review_months, and saves notes as an internal note. This is useful behavioral context even though annotations already indicate the operation is non-read-only and non-destructive.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds useful information about dates or notes, with no redundant framing.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers the main behavior an agent needs to call the tool correctly. The main gap is that firm_id is not mentioned, but the core review-completion semantics are otherwise well specified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It usefully explains next_review_months (default 12, range 1 to 120) and notes behavior, but it does not explain client_id or firm_id, leaving some parameter semantics to inference.

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: recording that a client's review is done. It also specifies the resulting date updates and note side effect, making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as get_client_reviews_due.

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 intended use is implied by 'Record that a client's review is done,' so an agent can infer it should be called after completing a review. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools to consider.

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