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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), the description adds real context: revision guards against overwriting a concurrent reply, no peer message is emitted, and the review wake is private. It does not discuss auth/permission requirements or the shape of the response, which leaves some behavioral gaps.

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?

The action list is front-loaded, followed by the concurrency, judgment, and privacy rules in tight sentences. Dense but almost every clause earns its place; minor awkwardness in 'await more response.'

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the state machine, the concurrency guard, summary privacy, and the optional wake. It omits what the call returns and whether repeated calls with the same revision behave idempotently, but the descriptions and annotations together are largely sufficient to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description compensates by explaining revision's concurrency role, summary as a private completion outcome, and next_review_at as an optional private review wake. It adds meaning over the schema for the high-value parameters, though request_id and connection are left to the schema.

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 states a specific verb (evaluate/update a request) and resource, and enumerates the four state transitions that map to the status enum. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names itself as the state-mutating sibling versus request_followup or request_retry.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated states and the line 'Completion requires your judgment, not an acknowledgment,' which hints at when a status is appropriate. However, no alternatives are named (request_followup, request_retry, a2a_task_update) and no explicit when-not guidance is given.

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