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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes far beyond: it discloses the resulting state (`needs_more_info`, which blocks claiming until resolved), the reviewer side effect, the artifacts it drafts (brief, open questions, proposed subtasks), and that a human applies the proposal. This is exactly the kind of write-side-effect disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the primary guidance ('Use this INSTEAD of guessing...') and then adds the side effects and follow-up in compact sentences. It is dense but every clause carries useful information; the trailing API reference link is the only marginal addition.

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, yet the description compensates by explaining what the reviewer produces and how to retrieve it with `get_task_review`. Given the tool's write complexity and the human-in-the-loop step, nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call is missing.

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%, so both parameters (task_id, reason) are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates the trigger conditions rather than adding format/syntax detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 (flag a task as missing information) plus the concrete mechanism: marks the task `needs_more_info` and runs the Tango PM reviewer. It distinguishes itself from siblings like resolve_needs_more_info, ask_human, and request_decomposition by describing exactly what state change and what review it triggers.

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 explicit when-to-use criteria (empty or hand-wavy goal, no checkable definition of done, unclear scope) and frames the alternative it replaces (guessing). It also routes the agent to the correct follow-up sibling (`get_task_review`) and states that a human applies the result in Tango, closing the loop.

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