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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that this is a background/asynchronous review and that the result is returned "when complete," but it does not describe pending-state behavior, polling expectations, or failure handling.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element (check, background AI review, started by ai_review, result when complete) contributes to correct tool selection or invocation.

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 simple read-only status tool with fully described parameters and safety annotations, the description provides enough context to call it correctly and understand that it relates to ai_review. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying what is returned while the job is still pending, but no output schema is present and the core workflow is clear.

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 100%, and the job_id parameter is already documented as being returned by ai_review. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond reiterating the provenance of the job, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 ("Check") and resource ("a background AI review"), and explicitly ties it to the sibling tool ai_review by saying the review was "started by ai_review." This lets an agent distinguish it from the starter tool and from unrelated status-check siblings.

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?

The phrase "started by ai_review" clearly indicates this should be used after ai_review has launched a background job, and the schema reinforces that job_id comes from ai_review. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or contrast with the other status-check siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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