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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it explains the error behavior ('never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ...}'), confirms safety for retry, and notes it is free to use ('FREE'). This fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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 remarkably concise at three short paragraphs. It front-loads the key purpose and a notable feature ('FREE.'), then efficiently covers usage, alternatives, error handling, and safety. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no required fields) and the presence of both input and output schemas, the description is complete. It explains the expected input, the output structure (with a concrete example), error handling, and fallback behavior. There are no missing elements needed for an agent to use this tool 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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'language' parameter well. The description adds value by giving a concrete example of the input and returned structure, as well as explaining fallback behavior for unknown values. The baseline is 3; the additional context justifies a 4.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Produce') and a clear resource ('pull-request review checklist'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'review_diff' and 'security_deep_dive' by clarifying its role is to guide the reviewer on what to look for, not to analyze actual code.

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 clear usage context: 'Use before a review, to decide what to look for.' It also explicitly states when not to use this tool ('Not for reviewing actual code') and names specific alternatives ('pass code to review_diff or security_deep_dive'). This gives the agent clear decision criteria.

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