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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it enumerates the returned fields (reviewer, optional note, is_stale) and explains the critical semantic that is_stale=true invalidates an approval for current content. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before acting on a verdict.

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, correctly front-loaded: purpose first, field contents second, decision-relevant warning last. No filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and the staleness caveat. It could have explicitly stated the operation is read-only, but otherwise nothing essential 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% for the single report_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 (List) and resource (review verdicts on a report) and even names the possible verdict values (approved / changes_requested). This clearly distinguishes it from get_report, read_report, and the write-side set_report_signoff.

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 an explicit use condition: 'Check this before promoting or distributing a report.' That tells the agent when the tool matters, though it does not name sibling alternatives or state exclusions.

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