check_review_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Check whether...' which is a read-only implication, but it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, nor does it mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or response format. This is minimal beyond the tool name.

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 description is two sentences, with the first stating the purpose and the second providing a usage example. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides the essential information for invocation (token extraction) and implies the outcome (approved or changes requested). However, since there is no output schema, the description does not specify the return format, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficient for basic use.

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 input schema already describes the token as 'The 12-character review token from the review URL.' The description adds value by giving a concrete example and clarifying how to extract it from the URL, which goes beyond the schema definition. This is helpful but not transformative, so a score of 4 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check whether a client has approved or requested changes on a review link.' This uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('review link'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_review_link. The action is specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides usage guidance by instructing to pass the token from the URL and gives an example. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The 'when' is implied by the purpose (checking review status) but not spelled out.

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