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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, suggesting the tool may have side effects, but the description implies a harmless review process and does not address any side effects, output storage, or permissions. Given the annotation contradicts the intuitive read-only nature of 'review' without explanation, the description fails to provide the necessary behavioral clarity.

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 that front-loads the core action and outputs. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or redundant 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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema the description must explain return values (it does list them). However, it omits side-effect disclosure, usage differentiation from siblings, and any input constraints beyond the schema. It is adequate for a basic review tool but leaves gaps in operational context.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parametric coverage with descriptions and an enum for review_type. The description reinforces the enum values in prose, but adds no new details about did or content format, so it only marginally enhances schema semantics.

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 performs reviews of specific content types (code, contracts, documents, strategies) and returns concrete outputs (issues, recommendations, risk score). It effectively communicates a specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze or decide beyond implying the review focus.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (analyze, decide, reason). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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