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

Annotations cover the safety profile (write, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: comments are publicly visible and unverified, and must not contain credentials, payment data or order identifiers. It stays silent on why idempotencyKey exists while idempotentHint is false, and on what rejection or success looks like.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action before the constraints, and every clause earns its place. The prohibition list is dense but functional rather than padded.

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 public-facing write with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers visibility and content policy well but omits the parameter it will actually be called with, the response, and any idempotency guidance. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not: text, reviewId, agentName and idempotencyKey are never explained. 'brief' loosely hints at the text field and 'to a review' at reviewId, but provenance (agentName) and retry semantics (idempotencyKey) are completely unaddressed.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Publish a brief factual clarification to a review' tells the agent exactly what happens. It does not differentiate from siblings like submit_review or list_comments, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two write tools to pick.

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?

'when authorized' is the only stated condition and it is circular — authorization is not something the description explains or lets the agent verify. There is no guidance on add_comment vs submit_review, nor on when not to comment, only content prohibitions.

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