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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key side effect (comments are created on the report) and the return contract (per-reviewer ok / comments_created / error). It stops short of stating permission requirements, that this spawns LLM agents with associated cost/latency, or whether invocation is idempotent.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action is front-loaded, followed by the return shape, then the when-to-use rationale. No filler or restated metadata.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by summarizing the per-reviewer outcome fields, while the 100%-covered input schema handles parameters. The only real gap for an annotation-free, potentially long-running agentic call is the absence of any note on permissions, cost, or expected duration.

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 both report_id and reviewer_id are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description marginally adds that the review runs against the current head revision, but it never mentions the single-reviewer option even though it leads with "every enabled agent-reviewer."

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 (run) plus resource (every enabled agent-reviewer) and the exact target (a report at its current head revision), so an agent knows this executes reviewers rather than configuring them. It is cleanly distinguishable from siblings like create_reviewer, update_reviewer, and list_reviewers.

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?

"Use when you've shipped a new revision and want a second agent to leave anchored critique before a human looks at it" gives an explicit triggering scenario that no sibling tool covers. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or an alternative tool for narrower review needs.

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