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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that raw source text is not returned, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not confirm idempotency, safety, or whether it requires the session to be completed (implied but not explicit).

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 a single sentence with 15 words, front-loading the purpose and essential constraint. No unnecessary 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the return content (findings+citations), what is excluded (raw text), and the prerequisite (session started). It could mention error conditions but is adequate overall.

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 0% but the description effectively explains that sessionId refers to the session started by start_private_review, providing context beyond the schema's type-only definition. Single parameter clarity is high.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves completed private review results (findings and citations) for a specific session. It distinguishes from siblings like start_private_review and get_private_review_progress by specifying it gets the final result, not starting or checking progress.

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 implies the session must have been started via start_private_review, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_private_review_progress (for status) or ask_question (for queries). No exclusions or prerequisites are listed.

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