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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it lists the exact data returned, including quality-gate status, PM proposal components, and open questions. Since there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return content, and it does so clearly.

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 dense but well-structured: it opens with the core return value, lists the specific components, and closes with a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

Given a single simple parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what will be returned, when to use it, and why it is preferable to asking the human, leaving no critical gap for invocation.

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%: the single `task_id` parameter is documented as 'Task id or task URL.' The description does not add meaning beyond this, but the schema already fully covers the parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 immediately states the tool returns whether a task is blocked by specific quality gates and the latest PM proposal. It enumerates the exact contents (missing information, goal, definition of done, open questions, proposed subtasks), clearly distinguishing this read-only review tool from task mutation or question-asking 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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'Read this before asking the human anything.' It explains why the tool should be used first—the reviewer has usually already written the questions worth asking—effectively telling the agent to consult this before falling back to asking the human directly.

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