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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely new behavior: a long-poll wait of roughly 25 seconds and a status state machine that drives repeated calls. It omits edge cases such as an invalid/expired reviewId, an error or failed review status, and what a timeout returns, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the status-check behavior and the wait time, then branching by status. Every sentence carries actionable information with 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?

An output schema exists, so describing the verdict, finding titles/severities, and PDF link is bonus value that assists chaining to the user. The state-machine coverage is complete for practical use, though it does not cover retrieving a reviewId, review expiry, or failure modes.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, though its regex pattern conveys the expected opaque ID format. The description never mentions reviewId, where it comes from (presumably start_contract_review), or what happens if it is malformed. With only one self-formatting parameter the gap is mild, so 3 rather than lower.

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 action on a specific resource ('See how a review is going') and immediately frames it as a polling/status tool, which separates it from start_contract_review, delete_contract_review, and answer_contract_review_questions. An agent can identify the tool's role 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: keep calling while status is 'checking' or 'reviewing', stop when finished, and switch to answer_contract_review_questions when status is 'needs-answers'. This names both the repeat condition and the sibling to call instead, leaving nothing to inference.

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