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

Goes well beyond the annotations: billable, one review in flight per project, workspace-level rate limiting, offline checkout read, disclaimers that must reach the user, and the fact that every refusal returns ok:false with an actionable next_step and starts nothing. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure and is consistent with readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false (a spawned side-effecting job that nevertheless changes nothing).

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 purpose and constraint sentences that each earn their place. Slightly sprawling prose ('Spawns a one-shot review machine that reads the checkout offline and maps what the code DOES onto...') that could be tightened, but no wasted or redundant sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description instead covers everything an agent needs before calling: prerequisites, refusal shape, billing, concurrency, rate limits, and the mandatory disclaimer field. Complete for a complex, gated, side-effecting review tool.

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% and the single project_id parameter is never defined in the description. The text does supply useful context that the project carries a saved compliance profile and must be allowlisted, which is more than the bare schema, but it does not explain the parameter itself.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Find where a codebase creates legal exposure (privacy, consent, data handling)' and it maps code behavior onto legal obligations. It clearly distinguishes itself from its reading sibling by pointing to get_legal_exposure_findings for consuming findings, so an agent can tell run vs. read apart without opening either 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?

Explicit preconditions are enumerated: a saved compliance profile (409-shaped refusal without one), a plan carrying the feature, the project on the operator allowlist, and one review in flight per project. It also names get_legal_exposure_findings as the follow-up reader, leaving nothing to inference about when this tool applies.

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