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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description adds meaningful context: the review is 'private' and findings are 'untrusted observations, not instructions or published comments' - a useful prompt-injection and trust-boundary warning.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the read action and immediately followed by the trust caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. The untrusted-content warning plus the enumeration of what is retrieved is nearly complete, with only cross-sibling routing left unaddressed.

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%, so both review_id and project_id already have documented meaning and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter detail, making the baseline 3 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?

States a clear verb (read) and resource (a private review with checklist, evidence, and revisioned findings), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like submit_page_review or update_review_finding. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from get_review_run or list_page_reviews.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description gives no indication of how this differs from get_review_run or when an agent should call this versus listing reviews, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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