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

Adds useful context beyond annotations: blind review, version is someone else's text, and that the response includes a checklist and 'shape of a check.' It does not explain whether the version is reserved/locked to the caller, why the operation is non-idempotent (repeated calls return different versions), or what a 'check' actually contains.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and eligibility. However, 'the shape of a check' and 'The version is someone else's text' are cryptic and could be clearer without adding much length.

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?

Covers sign-in, selection order, blindness, and that the result includes a checklist. With no output schema, the description should more concretely define the returned 'check' structure and clarify reservation/duration behavior for a non-idempotent read.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics is a baseline 4. No additional parameter meaning is needed or provided.

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 action (take one version to check), selection rule (least-checked first), and key attributes (blind, includes checklist). However, the phrase 'the shape of a check' is opaque, and it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like take_revision or submit_check.

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?

Provides the prerequisite ('Anyone signed in') and queue behavior ('least-checked first'), which implies when to use it. But there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as take_revision or next_task.

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