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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: which gates can block a task and the full shape of the returned proposal (missing info, goal, definition of done, open questions, subtasks). It doesn't discuss staleness or caching, but this is solid added value over 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value information (gate status first, then proposal contents, then the usage instruction). No filler, and the API reference link is tacked on without disrupting flow.

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, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden and enumerates the proposed content fields. Combined with the usage directive and the API reference, an agent has everything it needs to call this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (task_id), and schema description coverage is 100% ('Task id or task URL'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about the identifier format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb (returns) and the exact resource it exposes: quality-gate blocking state (`needs_more_info`/`needs_breakdown`) plus the latest Tango PM proposal with its constituent fields. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like `get_task`, `list_open_questions`, or `get_task_activity`.

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 when-to-use directive — 'Read this before asking the human anything' — and explains why (the reviewer has usually already written the questions worth asking), which implicitly routes the agent away from `ask_human` unless the review lacks an answer. That is a concrete usage rule, not implied context.

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