ck_review_status

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

Description declares 'Read-only' matching annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). Adds behavioral context like polling suitability and return contents (status, notes, URL). No contradictions.

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?

Single paragraph with multiple sentences starting with main purpose, then read-only note, then parameter usage. No redundant words, information density high.

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?

With output schema present, description explains return values (status, notes, URL) and polling use case. All parameters are explained in context. Complete for a status query tool with no required parameters.

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?

Description adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains review_id comes from ck_review_submit, task_id gets latest review, and review_type filters. Compensates for 67% schema coverage by clarifying parameter relationships.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Fetch' and resource 'latest decision status' with specific fields (pending/approved/denied, reviewer notes, browser review URL). Distinguishes from siblings like ck_review_submit by focusing on status retrieval.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (after ck_review_submit to check approval/denial) and how to parameterize (review_id vs task_id with review_type). Does not mention when not to use but context implies it's for status queries only.

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