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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not mention return format, not-found behavior, or any operational caveats, so it provides little transparency beyond the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, with a single clear purpose statement followed by a small toolset label and parameter list. The parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is compact and does not introduce bloat.

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 one-parameter lookup with rich safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an explicit statement of the return value (relevant since there is no output schema) and any error/not-found behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, these omissions are minor.

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% description coverage for reviewId, and the description repeats the exact phrase 'The Collaborator review ID to find.' No additional meaning is added, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Finds') and resource ('a review in Collaborator') and clearly identifies the selection criterion ('by its review ID'). This is immediately distinct from the list-oriented sibling collaborator_get_reviews and other review actions, so an agent can tell what it does.

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 'by its review ID' phrasing implies this is for looking up a single known review, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with collaborator_get_reviews or states that it should be used when an ID is already known. Usage context is implied, not spelled out.

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