Deterministic review gate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious traits beyond them: no LLM call, no cost/latency, and a non-binding (advisory) result. It still doesn't say what the response shape is, though an output schema exists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the determinism/cost trait and the purpose; nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 14-parameter decision-gate tool the description is thin on how inputs drive the advisory verdict and on ordering relative to review_decision/record_outcome. Adequate to identify the tool, not to fully define its contract.

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?

With 14 parameters and only 21% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and does not: it never mentions any input, not even that summary is keyword-scanned or how risk_level/trivial_kind shift the verdict. 'Expensive enough' hints at cost-oriented fields (files_changed, modules_touched, irreversible) but gives no mapping.

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+resource: a deterministic gate that checks whether a decision is 'expensive enough' to warrant review. It also names the sibling it gates (review_decision), so an agent can separate it from review_decision and record_outcome without opening either schema.

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?

It clearly positions itself as a pre-step to review_decision ('justify review_decision') and labels itself 'Advisory only', which tells the agent the verdict is a recommendation rather than a hard gate. It does not state an explicit when-not condition or a cost threshold for skipping it.

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