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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by stating it is 'free' and clarifying that it returns empty if no reviews exist, plus the ownership constraint. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value. It efficiently covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral notes.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, preconditions, and return behavior. No gaps are apparent given the tool's complexity and available structured information.

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% with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds extra semantics for ideaId by specifying ownership ('pass an ideaId you own'), which is not in the schema. Language parameter is not elaborated, but the schema already provides enum and default. Overall, the description meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns expert feedback for an idea, using the verb 'Return' and specifying the resource 'expert feedback'. It distinguishes from sibling get_* tools by mentioning 'qualified human judgement' and 'expert reviews', which is a unique function among the many get_ tools.

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?

The description provides clear context: use it to layer human judgement on an automated VC score, and it only returns data if expert reviews exist. It also implies a precondition (own the ideaId). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some room for the agent to infer.

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