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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the result is 'privacy-minimal' and 'durable', a PR Explanation returns its stored explanation, and a Code Review reports status only with findings delivered as PR comments. This is valuable context beyond annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the subsequent sentences concisely explain the behavior for each execution type.

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?

Given that annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists to describe return values, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, what result to expect per execution type, and where Code Review findings live. Minor gaps like error behavior or explicit pagination are not critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (execution_id and organization_id) are fully documented in the schema, including where their values come from. The description adds no additional syntax or format details for the parameters, making the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (current status and privacy-minimal durable result of a task execution), and further scopes it by execution type (PR Explanation vs. Code Review). It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_workflow_run or list_tasks, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 implied: retrieve status/result for an execution started via public MCP. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no direct reference to alternatives such as list_tasks or get_workflow_run. The schema parameter description mentions start_task, but the main description does not.

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