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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is established; the description still adds real behavior beyond them by naming the three possible status outcomes and by stating it never 'starts enrichment' or 'changes the review'. The instruction 'If confirmed, do not ask for approval again' is a genuinely useful workflow disclosure not derivable from annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reads and its possible results before usage and constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information (states, trigger conditions, non-actions, downstream approval behavior).

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey returns — and it does, by enumerating confirmed/pending/expired. Combined with the non-mutation constraint and the approval guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and act on the result.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines reviewId and its origin ('reviewId from review_items'). The description's 'Keep reviewId internal' is a minor handling note that adds little beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb (read) and a specific resource (the status of an exact pick preview), and enumerates the three possible states (confirmed, pending, expired). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like stage_picks, review_items, or confirm_items, which mutate or enumerate rather than report prior preview state.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: 'Use when reopening a previous preview or checking a lost confirmation response.' That is clear context for invoking it, but no sibling is named as the alternative for the adjacent cases (e.g. stage_picks to create a preview, confirm_items to act on it), so the routing is only partly spelled out.

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