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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive; the description adds real value by drawing the side-effect boundary explicitly — no review submitted, no card or schedule mutation. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about permissions, or whether repeated reveals are safe within a session beyond what idempotentHint 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return value and then the non-effect. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 the description need not explain the return shape, and it still names the returned field (backText). With full schema coverage, a clear read-only side-effect statement, and no nested objects, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are documented there, including that cardId comes from next_review_card and workspaceId defaults to the selected workspace. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so this is the baseline 3 case where 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 resource — returns the saved backText for a workspace card — and scopes it to the reveal step of a review. It also distinguishes itself from the review-submission flow, so an agent can separate it from siblings like submit_review without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context for use (revealing the reference answer during review) plus an explicit exclusion: it does not submit a review or modify the card or schedule. It doesn't name a sibling tool by name as the alternative path (e.g. submit_review), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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