Get the independent review packet

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries real weight and delivers: the payload is limited to findings and checked evidence, an ELLIOT_REVIEW_TOKEN is required for the configuration described, and the auditor endpoint cannot record review decisions. That is genuinely useful operational context an agent would not get from the annotations alone.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return contract before the security caveat. Every sentence carries information; no filler, though the security sentence is dense and could be split.

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?

Given no output schema, the description says little about the shape of the packet beyond 'findings and checked evidence', which a fresh reviewer process must parse. The critical security/role guidance is present, but the caller lacks detail on packet structure and on audit_id semantics.

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?

There is one required parameter (audit_id) and schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions it. The schema's regex pattern at least signals the audit_<hex> format, but nothing in the prose explains where to obtain the id or what it identifies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it returns findings and checked evidence, and the word 'only' scopes the payload away from decisions/summaries that sibling tools like elliot_report or elliot_record_review presumably handle. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never explicitly names which sibling it replaces.

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?

'Give it to a fresh reviewer process' states the intended consumer directly, and the closing sentence gives an actionable deployment constraint (use a separate ELLIOT_ROLE=reviewer server). There is no explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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