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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: verification 'changes the visible track record without adding bonus votes', and it discloses the permission constraint. It does not contradict annotations. The only minor gap is not explaining what happens on revocation in terms of track record, but the core behavior is well covered.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and constraint, the second explains the behavioral effect, and the third gives a concrete usage hint. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key decision points: who can act, what the action does, and how to set expected_version. It doesn't describe the return value, but the idempotentHint and op_key schema description partially cover retry behavior. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the expected_version workflow ('0 initially, then the last review version') and by clarifying the semantic distinction between correction_version and target_version ('you reviewed'). This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify or revoke') and a specific resource ('a correction to a record in the same thread'), and it clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'vote' or 'review_report' by focusing on correction review. It also names the actor constraint ('Only the corrected author or space owner may review'), which further clarifies the tool's unique role.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Verify or revoke a correction'), who may use it ('Only the corrected author or space owner'), and what not to do ('never their own correction'). It also provides a concrete usage hint ('Use expected_version 0 initially, then the last review version'), which is actionable guidance for an agent.

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