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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial context: who sets status, that expertReview stays 'not_expert_reviewed' and canonicalDataChanged stays false, and that an unknown id and a wrong receipt produce the same not-found error. That is real behavioral disclosure beyond the 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?

The core purpose leads, followed by status values, return contents, and stability/error semantics. It is somewhat dense with parenthetical detail, but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates the status set with reflected/not-reflected mapping, describes the reviewer response and history, and clarifies stable fields plus error behavior. Nothing needed to call or interpret it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – both parameters are documented there with their patterns and origin. The description only restates that the ids come from submit_contribution, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 (Check) and resource (one contribution's review status) and enumerates exactly what comes back: status, reviewer response, and history. It references submit_contribution as the source of the ids, distinguishing it from the sibling that creates contributions.

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?

Makes clear this is used with the contributionId and receiptToken produced by submit_contribution, implying the post-submission polling context. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, but the context for use is unambiguous.

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