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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call is asynchronous, returns a job_id, and the payload lands in result.answer after polling get_job. What it omits is any sense of cost or expected latency, which matters for an advice-generating review the agent may need to wait on.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what is reviewed, the optional question mode, and the return/polling contract. The core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from annotations 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining the return path (job_id → get_job → result.answer), which is exactly the missing piece an agent needs. It is nearly complete; the remaining gap is that it says nothing about how long the job takes or whether polling needs a delay strategy.

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 inline, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only restates that the question is optional and specific; it adds no syntax, scoping, or example guidance beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (reviews) and resource (the board/design) and enumerates the review domains — power integrity, decoupling, thermal, signal integrity, manufacturability, part choice — plus the optional-question mode. This is far more informative than a name restatement. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from close siblings like run_drc or answer_question, which an agent could otherwise confuse with it.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Optionally answer a specific question about the board' tells the agent a question mode exists but not when to pick this over answer_question or run_drc. There are no exclusion conditions or prerequisites (e.g. design must be imported/routed first). The one concrete routing instruction present is the follow-up step, poll get_job.

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