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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: gaps are linked to lessons, and the tool 'Returns instructions to follow with the user's text' — signalling the response is an actionable payload the agent must act on, not just data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the checklist, then return behavior. The dimension list is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what will be evaluated. Slightly dense mid-sentence enumeration but no wasted framing.

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?

A read-only, single-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage needs little description, and this one covers purpose, evaluation criteria, and returned payload. The only minor gap is that 'spec' is not required in the schema but the description doesn't indicate whether an empty call is meaningful.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'spec' as 'The spec or PRD text'. The description mentions 'the user's text' but adds no format, size, or content expectations beyond that, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 ('check') and resource ('AI feature spec or PRD') and enumerates the twelve review dimensions, which clearly separates it from siblings like review_ai_incident or review_launch_readiness. It never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, but the resource scope does the disambiguating work.

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 by the name and by the enumerated dimensions, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, and no mention of how it differs from other review_* tools. An agent can infer it is for spec/PRD review, but must choose among siblings without guidance.

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