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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, such as requiring human inspection of exact values and rationale, and stating that it is not final approval. It also implies mutation, which aligns with destructiveHint, though it could mention idempotency explicitly since the schema already includes it.

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 description is concise, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds essential information. It avoids redundancy with the schema and annotations, earning its place.

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?

Given the complexity and the 4 required parameters, the description covers the critical constraints (issue eligibility and scope limit) and the intended workflow. It does not detail the exact format for reportRevision, but the schema already provides that structure, so the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. While it clarifies the purpose of issueIds and reason implicitly, it does not explain the semantics of reportRevision or idempotencyKey beyond what the schema provides. The description adds value for the overall flow but lacks parameter-specific guidance.

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 clearly states the tool's action: requesting the authenticated reviewer's email confirmation to arbitrate up to ten business questions in a report. It specifies the scope and explicitly distinguishes from final dossier approval.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: only for human-arbitration questions, not for deterministic failures or missing evidence. It also clarifies that this is not final dossier approval, preventing misuse.

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