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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns stable experience IDs alongside 1-based positions, and it explicitly warns that positions are display-only and must never be used in later mutations. This clarifies important response semantics.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the core behavior and return values, and the second adds an important usage constraint. There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation content.

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, single-parameter, read-only list tool with safety annotations, the description covers the essential context: scope, filtering, return contents, and the critical rule that positions are not valid mutation references. Pagination and ordering are not mentioned, but they are not necessary for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

The only parameter, visibility, is fully defined by its enum in the input schema, and the description maps to it with 'in one visibility state.' However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what each enum value (especially aggregate_only) means or how to choose among them. The schema carries most of the semantic weight here.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('the authenticated user's reviews'), and a clear filtering scope ('in one visibility state'). It also states what the tool returns (stable experience IDs plus 1-based positions), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_review_visibility (a mutation) and list_open_deliberations (a different resource type).

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need a read-only list of the current user's reviews filtered by visibility. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as distinguishing it from set_review_visibility or other listing/search tools.

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