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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by ruling out signing/execution, noting that drafts are not verified agreements, and warning that case builders are SDK helpers rather than endpoint tools. Return shape and how obligations/approvals are surfaced are not described.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining sentences are short, targeted clarifications. A few disclaimers are near-boilerplate but still earn their place as guardrails against misuse.

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 nested-object tool with no output schema, the external reference JSON with a complete empty example covers the case format well. However expected_id is unaddressed and nothing indicates what a review returns, so the definition is not fully self-sufficient.

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?

Coverage is 50% and the case property carries a long schema description of its own, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a reference link for the case format but says nothing about expected_id beyond the schema pattern, leaving its role (presumably integrity pinning) unexplained.

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 (review) and resource (an exact coordination case, its approvals and remaining obligations), which is clearer than the bare name. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling review tools (authority, evidence), so an agent must infer the split.

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 implies usage via disclaimers ('A contract draft is not a verified agreement', 'No signing or execution') and points to a reference URL for the case format. It never says when to call this versus covenant_review__authority or covenant_review__evidence, leaving the choice to inference.

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