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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces this with 'Non-destructive: it suggests, it doesn't edit' and discloses the nature of the output (comments anchored to quoted passages). It adds real context, though it says nothing about cost, latency, or scope limits on large documents.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines the action and output, the second disambiguates from the edit path. Front-loaded purpose with 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema already describing the return payload, nothing an agent needs is missing: the action, the non-destructive contract, and the sibling to use for applying changes are all present.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('the artifact to review (best for documents)'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's only additional signal is that the target is one of the user's documents, which is marginal and largely mirrors the schema note.

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 (review) and resource (a Xenition document) and specifies the output shape: constructive comments each tied to a quoted passage, covering clarity, structure and correctness. An agent can immediately distinguish it from edit_artifact or summarize_artifact.

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?

Explicitly frames this as non-destructive ('it suggests, it doesn't edit') and names the follow-up alternative, edit_artifact, for applying changes. It does not, however, contrast itself with close siblings like summarize_artifact, extract_from_artifact or query_document, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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