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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that an API key is required, that it works on any plan, and that an account without a team returns an empty list. It also reveals the key limitation that decisions cannot be made through this tool, which is exactly the kind of behavioral fact annotations cannot express.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence and every later sentence adds a distinct fact (return shape, alternative tool, web-only decision, auth/plan, empty-list edge case). The long mid-description field enumeration is dense but justified given no output schema; minor tightening would still help.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, the alternative tool for notes, the web-only decision path, auth/plan requirements, and the empty-list edge case. An agent has everything needed to call it and to explain results to the user.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline applies. The description does add value by enumerating the fields each returned item carries (template_id, state, assigned_to_me, unresolved_feedback, etc.), which compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 and resource ('List the review requests') and then narrows the scope precisely: requests waiting on the user, including templates needing a new look after slides changed. It also names the boundary condition (the user's own requests are left out), which distinguishes it from list_templates and get_template_feedback.

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?

Explicit routing is present: reading the notes on a template is deferred to get_template_feedback, and approving or sending back a review is declared impossible here and must happen on the web. It also tells the agent to ask the user to take that action, giving a concrete fallback rather than leaving the agent to guess.

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