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

Annotations already say readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds behavior annotations cannot express: it blocks up to ~45 seconds waiting, never counts as an attempt, and returns a stage_label the agent is told to relay to the user. The cost/consume semantics and the latency are the exact facts an agent needs before invoking.

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 key constraint (check, don't restart) is front-loaded in the first two sentences. It runs a bit long with the emphasis on DO NOT and the restated call-again instruction, but every block carries distinct operational information rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description describes what comes back (stage_label indicating whether reviewers are still on the change or Veridu is checking outside code) and what to do with it. Combined with the polling-loop instruction, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the schema already documents review_id as the id returned by veridu_review. The description reinforces that it must be the same id on repeat calls, which is a small semantic addition but not meaningfully beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource — check a Veridu review that is still running and fetch its result — and explicitly states the boundary 'never starts a review', which separates it from the veridu_review sibling. An agent can tell exactly which tool handles the in-flight review case without consulting the 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?

It names the triggering condition (veridu_review returned while the review was still running), the loop instruction (call again with the same review_id), and an explicit negative: do NOT call veridu_review again for the same pull request because that starts a second review and consumes an attempt. That is a full when/when-not/alternative breakdown.

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