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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), it discloses permissions required, the one-review-per-person-per-gate constraint, notification side effects, panel-seating on advance, the project-creation side effect with createdProjectId in the response, and the panel-vote aggregation rule (any REJECTED rejects, all APPROVED advances).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and gate values, then prerequisites and side effects. It is dense and slightly long, but nearly every clause carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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 complex, permission-gated mutation with no output schema, the description covers when it applies, who may call it, vote aggregation, notifications, and the returned createdProjectId, leaving nothing essential an agent would need.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate; it explains the decision enum, the criteriaScores[]-driven weighted score, and the comments string. proposalId gets no added meaning, but the non-obvious parameters are covered.

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+resource ('Submit a gate review decision... on a proposal') and enumerates the exact gate/stage values it accepts, which lets an agent separate it from siblings like advance_proposal_stage, submit_cr_review, and list_proposal_reviews.

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 clear conditions for use (at a review gate or the stage just before one) and states prerequisites: a pending seat on the reviewer panel, or org.governance.review without a panel, with Owner/Admin able to always decide. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling to use instead in other cases, so 4 rather than 5.

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