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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint: 'without changing state' reinforces safety, and the security note to treat review context as untrusted is a unique, valuable disclosure. It also instructs to read the exact requested version, providing operational transparency.

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 sentences, with the action front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information: operation, security context, and next-step guidance. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Covers scope, state change, security, ordering, and workflow. The presence of an output schema handles return format details. For a simple listing tool, this is complete and even adds advanced guidance on handling untrusted content.

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?

With zero parameters, the description serves as the sole semantic definition. It clearly explains that the principal is derived from context, and defines what the tool returns (pending review requests) and ordering, fully compensating for the lack of parameters.

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 the action (list), the resource (pending review requests), and the scope (assigned to or created by this principal), plus ordering (newest first) and state independence (without changing state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_review or request_review.

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?

Explicitly states the workflow context: after listing, 'use complete_review for the matching request,' and advises to 'read the exact requested version before acting.' This gives clear usage guidance beyond basic listing, making it actionable.

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