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

With empty annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly explains that calling this tool does not resolve the finding, details the resolution process (nightly check after two clean runs, or a person for critic/agent findings), and clarifies that the record shows the fix working. This is rich, accurate behavioral information beyond the tool's basic function.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, timing/restriction, and behavioral caveat. No redundant text, and the critical information (does not resolve finding) is front-loaded after the opener. The structure is efficient and focused.

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 recording tool with no output schema, the description covers all needed points: what it does, when to call, who can use it, and the critical side-effect (non-resolution). All parameters are documented in the schema, and the behavioral transparency fills any gaps. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (note, finding_id, pull_request_number) is already described in the schema. The description adds context about the relationship ('finding' vs 'fix') but does not provide additional parameter-specific semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the details.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Record the pull request that fixes an accepted self-review finding') with a distinct resource (pull request for a finding). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on recording a fix after acceptance, and it includes a staff-only restriction. The verb and object are unambiguous.

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 it once the PR is open' and emphasizes the internal-only restriction. It also clarifies what the tool does NOT do (does not resolve the finding), which prevents misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when to use them (e.g., propose-self-review-finding-tool), leaving some inference to the agent, but the guidance is sufficiently concrete.

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