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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what the tool resolves with (findings plus approve/request-changes verdict), but says nothing about failure modes, timeouts, cancellation, or whether the call blocks until completion.

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 with zero waste, and the core behavior (real-time follow, then resolve with findings and verdict) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description correctly explains what the tool resolves with, which is the key missing piece. It is nearly complete but omits stream/error behavior that matters for a long-running real-time call.

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 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents reviewId. The description adds only that the id is 'returned by review_code', which the schema also states, so 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+resource ('Follow a review ... in real time') and names the origin tool (review_code). It implicitly contrasts with the polling sibling get_review via 'in real time', but never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the streaming-vs-polling distinction.

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: the description ties it to a review submitted by review_code, suggesting it is called after that. However, it does not state when to prefer this over get_review, nor any preconditions such as the review needing to be in progress.

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