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

The readOnlyHint annotation is reinforced and enriched: the description spells out READ-ONLY, owner-only scope, the returned statuses, in-flight version, reviewer needs-changes reason, and security-scan findings. This goes well beyond the annotation and tells the agent exactly what to expect from the call.

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 information-dense without fluff: purpose, payload contents, usage timing, owner restriction, and safety hint all appear in a compact block. The most important scoping phrase ('YOUR OWN agent') is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to call it, and who can call it, leaving no practical ambiguity for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the sole 'agent' parameter as a slug or id. The description repeats 'Pass the agent slug/id' and adds 'YOUR OWN agent', which is slightly clarifying but largely redundant with the schema and sibling context.

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 and resource: 'Check the review status of YOUR OWN agent and WHY it is where it is'. It lists the exact statuses and names findagent_submit_for_review as its companion, clearly distinguishing this tool from submission and general browsing tools.

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?

It explicitly says to use this after submitting, describes what conditions it reports (approved, still in review, sent back), and adds the owner-only restriction. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it versus other status/query tools, but the 'YOUR OWN agent' scope and companion reference make the usage context clear.

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