Collaborator: Find Review By ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it finds a review by ID but does not elaborate on behavior when the ID is invalid, the review is not found, or any other response details. It adds minimal extra context beyond annotations, which is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a structured toolset and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no unnecessary words or fluff. Every element earns its place.

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 simple find-by-ID read operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose and input. However, it does not describe the return value or any output structure, which is a minor gap but not critical given common agent knowledge about similar operations.

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 has 100% coverage (the single parameter reviewId is described both in schema and description identically). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 action ('Finds a review') and the resource ('in Collaborator by its review ID'). It also specifies the Toolset ('Review Management'), which helps differentiate from other collaborator tools. This is a specific verb+resource combination, making it easy for the agent to understand.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like collaborator_get_reviews (which lists reviews) or other search methods. It assumes the user already has a specific review ID. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative tool mentions are provided, so the agent lacks context for appropriate selection.

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