review_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses a refusal behavior (leverage language rejected at draft time), a grounding constraint (no sentiment not in the record), and a non-mutating guarantee ("never submits itself"). Gaps remain around error behavior for an invalid verification_id and any permission requirements.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place, with the core grounding constraint front-loaded. Slight awkwardness in the compound "timeliness/communication/quality" clause but no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should characterize the returned draft (length, structure, whether it is plain text). It also stops short of the obvious next step, submitting or approving the draft, which matters for a single-parameter drafting tool in a brief workflow.

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 0% and the single parameter, verification_id, is entirely undocumented. The description only implies it references an existing verification record; it says nothing about format, where to obtain the ID, or whether the record must be in a particular state.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Draft review text") and pins the input source to a verification record only. The scope constraint ("what was hired, what was verified, and timeliness/communication/quality strictly as recorded") makes it clearly distinct from the brief_* and completion_verify siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through hard content constraints (record-only, no added sentiment, leverage language refused) rather than stated as when-to-use/when-not. It never tells the agent what alternative to use for a freeform review or how the draft eventually gets submitted, leaving the workflow after drafting to inference.

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