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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds real value beyond them: 24-hour retention window, the access requirement to the original project/workspace, and the three possible return states (running progress, failed details, complete findings).

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 differentiating constraint (no new run, no charge), followed by the return/retention context. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return states and the retention/permission conditions. Minor gap: it does not say what happens when results have expired or what the jobId source is, but the core call path is well covered.

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?

Only one parameter (jobId), and schema description coverage is 0% with no enum or format explanation in structured data. The description implies jobId identifies the 'previously started review' but gives no syntax, source, or format guidance, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (read) and resource (a previously started review), plus the key differentiator that it neither starts nor charges for a new run. An agent can distinguish this retrieval tool from run_auto_review and compare_visual without inspecting 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?

Clearly frames usage as retrieving results of an already-started review rather than triggering one, and notes retention/results availability. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools that start reviews, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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