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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the webhook behavior (Comma POSTs report content to reviewer_url, reviewer replies with comments) and the auto_on_revision default. It omits failure/error behavior and confirmation of auth-header encryption (that lives in schema), but the core runtime behavior 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the two most consequential behaviors. No filler, though the report_id/auto_on_revision sentences overlap with schema text.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema creation tool, the definition covers purpose, scoping, and automatic-run behavior. It leaves out response shape and failure modes, but those are minor given the otherwise complete coverage of the call decision.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters in detail. The description largely restates the report_id scoping and auto_on_revision default rather than adding new syntax or semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Register an agent-reviewer') and immediately distinguishes it from siblings like list_reviewers/update_reviewer/delete_reviewer by describing the creation semantics. An agent can tell what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance for the key decision: set report_id to scope to one report versus omit it for an org-wide reviewer. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for updating/deleting, but the when-to-use context is clear and actionable.

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