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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns saved evidence, does not infer exceptions, does not declare every tag a deviation, and does not send notifications. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but the key behavioral boundaries are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the usage trigger and stays reasonably compact. It has minor repetition between 'without declaring every tag a deviation' and 'Does not infer exceptions', but no sentence is seriously wasteful.

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 read-only review tool with an output schema and high schema description coverage, the description supplies the essential scope, evidence semantics, and behavioral exclusions. Pagination and some parameter details are left to the schema, which is acceptable here.

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 80%, so most parameter meaning is already documented. The description adds org-specific guidance for tagNames but does not explain locationIds, locationLimit/locationOffset paging, or includeDiscussionFlags beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (review) and resource (location operational exceptions) and clarifies that the scope is saved location-field tags and discussion flags. It distinguishes the tool's exception-focused review purpose from generic listing, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Opens with a clear 'Use when reviewing...' trigger and explains that tagNames should supply the organization's exact exception tags. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives such as list_field_tags or list_field_discussions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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