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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context with 'Ogen never chooses' and the read-only-sounding 'look at', but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or behavior on invalid action_id. The 'explain' framing sufficiently implies a non-mutating tool, though not exhaustively.

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 short and front-loaded with the tool's core value and contents. 'Ogen never chooses' and 'Free and pro' add a bit of behavioral/pricing context but are not verbose; overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the response will contain by listing the key output categories. It omits response envelope details, error cases, or authorization requirements, but given the low complexity this is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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% and the only parameter, action_id, is already well-described in the schema as the value returned by commit_gated_action. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('explain a held action') and enumerates the content delivered: what it waited on, source statements, and a fix template. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_holds or what_it_caught, but the content list makes the tool's specific role evident.

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 phrase 'for a person or their assistant to look at' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. An agent cannot confidently decide between this and list_holds or what_it_caught from the description alone.

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