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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' sentence adds nothing. Real added context is the ordering guarantee ('newest first') and the contents of the status payload (running jobs, next stage awaiting approval), which tell the agent what state it can observe. It does not cover failure behavior, e.g. what status does without a project_id.

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?

The trigger leads, followed by a clean 'action list:' / 'action status:' parallel structure and a short operational note. The only dead weight is the final 'Read-only.' which duplicates the annotations; the status enumeration is long but every item is informative.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and it does so for both actions, listing the counters and job/stage state the agent can expect. Combined with the calling-cadence advice, an agent can select and invoke this correctly without further context.

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 67% and the enum values are the main semantic gap, which the description fills by defining what 'list' and 'status' actually return. project_id and include_archived are elaborated in the schema itself, and the description's note that ids come 'from revisia_projects list' usefully links the two calls. It could be sharper about when project_id is required versus optional.

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 names the resource ('the researcher's reviews') and enumerates the two operations with concrete content: 'action list: reviews owned by the account, newest first' and 'action status: corpus size, identification and deduplication counts...'. This is enough to separate it from revisia_projects_act on behavior grounds, though the description never acknowledges the write-side sibling or explains why the tool is named 'projects' while it returns '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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when you need the researcher's reviews or where one stands') plus a concrete cadence rule ('Call status before proposing next steps and after any long job'). What's missing is a negative/exclusion rule pointing to revisia_projects_act for mutations, so the agent must infer the read/write split.

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