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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-streaming, snapshot nature of the call and that it is intended for polling, which is real context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, permission requirements, or behavior for an unknown/expired reviewId.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the disambiguation against stream_review follows immediately, so nothing needs to be skimmed for.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields (status, verdict, findings), which is exactly what an agent needs. The only gap is undefined error behavior for invalid or unknown reviewIds, a minor omission for such a simple lookup.

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 the single parameter is already documented as 'the reviewId returned by review_code'. The description does not add syntax, format, or provenance details beyond what the schema already supplies, so the 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 and resource ('Get the current state of a review by ID') and enumerates what the state contains (status, verdict, findings). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling stream_review, so an agent can select between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the positive case ('useful for polling or inspecting a review after the fact') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('Use stream_review to follow a review in real time instead'). This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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