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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: the key and receipt must be kept private, and a returned review is not a verified claim or approval for paid work. This meaningfully informs downstream agent behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each with a purpose: the first states the core behavior, the second gives a security directive, the third sets expectations about the meaning of the result. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time context: authorization, privacy, and the evidential limitation of the returned review. It does not describe exact response fields, but the low complexity and read-only annotations make this acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameter descriptions are useful ('Review ID from the receipt', 'Private key used when submitting'), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, matching the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns only the review') and adds the key authorization condition, clearly distinguishing this private, keyed retrieval from the public sibling tools like get_review_requirements and get_case_studies. The title 'Read a private project review' reinforces the singular purpose.

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?

Usage is implied through 'Returns only the review authorized by its private review_key'—the agent can infer to call this when it has a receipt and key. However, no alternative tools are named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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