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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the required credential (BOUNTY_OPERATOR_TOKEN in the server environment), which is not visible in the schema or annotations and directly affects whether the call can succeed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the call-before-run_review directive, and each sentence carries actionable information. The enumeration of returned fields is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it does not bloat the description.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything the agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, and the required auth environment variable. Return-value detail is delegated appropriately to the output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameter semantics to clarify or omit, and the description correctly implies the tool is invoked with no arguments.

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 states a specific purpose: checking the account allowance/plan and usage. It clearly names run_review as the relationship anchor, but does not distinguish itself from the other four siblings (prepare_review, build_packet, run_gauntlet_plan, list_profiles), so an agent gets the what but not a full sibling map.

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?

'Call before run_review to check the allowance' gives explicit ordering guidance that ties the tool to a concrete workflow step. It does not state when NOT to call or mention alternative ways to inspect the account, so it stops short of the 5-level when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the internal verification behavior (every cited file and line checked against the manifest) and the auth posture ("No account needed"), which an agent cannot infer from 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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads when to call it and what it reads, the second states the verification behavior and the return value. No restatement of the tool name or filler.

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 the return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names them for orientation. Combined with the outlined read/verify flow and the no-account note, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only explicit sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small pointer for `context` ("the same context object prepare_review takes") and frames `manifest` as what "prepare_review or run_review returned, unchanged," but the remaining six parameters (model, source, stages, profile, provider) get no additional meaning from the prose.

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 chain (reads, checks, returns) over a named resource (the review vs. the manifest), and it explicitly states the output artifacts: verdict, reference problems, and the Markdown evidence packet with hashes. It is clearly distinguishable from prepare_review and run_review by naming the upstream tool it depends on.

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?

"Call after writing a review from prepare_review" gives a concrete sequencing prerequisite that tells the agent where this sits in the workflow. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a direct comparison against run_review/run_gauntlet_plan, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: it discloses the discovery/routing semantics (hosted profiles go through run_review, core ones also via prepare_review) and the auth constraint ('No account needed').

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger before the payload inventory and the routing rule. Dense but every clause carries information; the middle sentence's list is long but justified as the return inventory.

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 needn't be specified, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. With zero parameters, annotations covering the safety profile, and downstream routing explained, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter detail.

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 and resource ('Returns every review profile') and enumerates the exact payload (checks, file needs, hosted flag, gauntlet stage order, verdicts per mode, provider/model ids). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming run_review and prepare_review and the profile type each consumes.

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?

'Call first when you do not know which review fits' is an explicit trigger condition, and the hosted-vs-core sentence routes the agent to the correct downstream tool (run_review vs prepare_review). Both when-to-use and the alternative-selection logic are stated, not inferred.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: files are scanned for secrets, file contents are not sent back, blocking results enumerate file/line/kind, hosted profiles are refused with a specific code, and secret content is never transmitted. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the call-before instruction and each sentence carries new information (scan behavior, manifest, refusal routing, file-input modes). It is dense across eight sentences, but given the 7-parameter, nested-context surface, little is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still usefully enumerates what is returned. Against a complex tool with nested context and multiple profiles it covers the critical operational facts, though it does not address the mode parameter's effect, relying on the schema for that.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies the files/paths duality ('paths for the server to read under its working directory, pass their text as files, or both'), which explains how the two input modes interact. It also names the core profiles (general, solidity, report) tied to the profile enum. It stops short of explaining mode or the context object, so it sits just above baseline.

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 and resource: prepare a review by scanning files for secrets and returning a SHA-256 manifest, reviewer instructions, output format and the request to answer. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling run_review by noting hosted profiles are refused here and must go there. An agent can tell what this does and which tool to pick without opening a 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?

Opens with the triggering condition ('Call before reviewing code or a draft report with your own model') and gives an explicit alternative plus the exact refusal code (hosted_profile) that routes the agent to run_review. It also notes no account is needed and points to list_profiles for profile ids, leaving nothing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds execution-relevant behavior: hosted stages need the connection token, core stages are answered by the model itself, and the plan requires no account. That auth/execution context is genuinely beyond the structured fields, though it stops short of describing ordering guarantees or failure modes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the invocation condition, then the return shape, then the hosted/core execution caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; it could be marginally tightened but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema exists (so return values needn't be spelled out), rich annotations, and a nested optional parameter, the description covers when to call, what the plan contains, and the token/account requirements for following through. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `context` parameter is documented in-schema as the same object prepare_review takes. The description adds only that empty Context fields are reported back, which is useful framing but not syntax or structure beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states a specific verb (plan/returns the 8 stages) and resource (the gauntlet pre-submission run), and enumerates the returned contents: stages, profiles, running tool, files and Context fields read, call instructions, empty fields, and the terminating build_packet call. It also distinguishes its role from siblings by naming run_review and build_packet.

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?

"Call when the researcher wants the full pre-submission run" gives a clear triggering condition and implies this is the entry point for the whole flow. It clarifies which stages route to run_review versus the agent's own model, but offers no explicit when-not or contrast against prepare_review/list_profiles beyond the shared context reference.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false, idempotent=false): states the quota cost ("Uses one hosted review"), the auth requirement (BOUNTY_OPERATOR_TOKEN), latency ("Can take several minutes"), plan restrictions, and a prompt-injection warning that the review text is model output. Rich behavioral context.

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?

Front-loads the core action and packs distinct facts (quota, plan gating, auth, latency, injection caution) without filler. It is dense but not bloated, though a few clauses could be tightened.

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 9-parameter open-world, non-idempotent tool with an output schema, the description supplies the operational details an agent needs: auth token, quota consumption, plan eligibility, latency, and the model-output-as-data caution. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds only indirect hints (provider key from environment variable, profiles default) and does not extend parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Runs the review") and scopes it to the named provider/model and the hosted path. It explicitly positions itself against the sibling prepare_review by claiming it is "the only way to run a hosted one."

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?

Gives clear context: which profiles are operator-only, what happens on a free account (refused with operator_only), and that it consumes a hosted review. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer this over run_gauntlet_plan or prepare_review, leaving the run-vs-prepare choice partly to inference.

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