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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, yet the description still adds genuinely new behavior: it never raises a protocol error on bad input, returns an {"error": ...} payload instead, and is therefore safe to retry after correction. That error contract is real value beyond the annotations. Minor deduction for the 'FREE.' marketing token and for restating retry safety that idempotentHint partly implies.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first line, then usage, exclusion, and error behavior in a logical order; every sentence carries information. The dangling 'FREE.' fragment and the hard line breaks add noise without adding meaning.

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 return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the stated alternative tools, the error contract, and a sample request/response, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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%, and the schema already documents the allowed values and the unknown-value fallback to general. The description contributes only an example invocation ({"language": "python"}), which illustrates rather than adds semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and artifact ('Produce a focused pull-request review checklist') scoped to a language or stack, and explicitly excludes code review, naming review_diff and security_deep_dive as the tools for that. An agent can distinguish it from all six siblings without opening any 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?

Explicit timing ('Use before a review, to decide what to look for'), an explicit exclusion ('Not for reviewing actual code'), and two named alternatives for the excluded case. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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