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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: default status=PENDING, the meaning of `round` across review cycles, the org.governance.review permission needed for reviewerId, and the ENTERPRISE+ governance plan gate. It stops short of describing pagination/return-shape behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

A single dense block, but front-loaded with the core purpose and default behavior, then progressively adding mode switches, permissions, and the preferred alternative. Every clause carries information, though the run-on structure with parentheticals makes it heavier than necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description reasonably characterizes the return (approval rows, `round` indicating which review round, gate context) and covers defaults, permissions, plan gating, and the follow-up tool. Pagination behavior is the main omission an agent might want.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema leaves `status` undescribed, but the description supplies the semantics (default PENDING, APPROVED/REJECTED = decision history) and adds permission nuance to reviewerId beyond the schema's 'Org-tier admins can inspect other reviewers.' Only `limit` is left purely to the schema, which already covers it.

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+resource ('Return the calling agent's gate-approval inbox') and immediately bounds the scope to ProposalGateApproval rows where reviewer = caller. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_gate_reviewers or list_proposal_reviews without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what the default call returns (PENDING queue), when to switch modes (status=APPROVED/REJECTED for decision history), when reviewerId applies (org.governance.review for auditing another user's queue), and names the alternative tool with its condition: 'PREFER submit_proposal_review to act on a PENDING row.'

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