opencdr_review_execution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that by revealing two operating modes (durable receipt read vs. fresh stored/effective comparison) and a deployment constraint, but it does not say whether the comparison is a snapshot, how stale the receipt can be, or what the result contains.

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, no filler, with the capability stated first and the deployment constraint second. The only cost is that brevity is achieved through opaque terms ("durable Core receipt", "stored/effective state") rather than plain wording.

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 two-mode, one-required-identifier tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the critical questions unanswered: what `approval_id` refers to, how `verify` selects the mode, and what the caller gets back in each case. An agent could not reliably invoke this correctly without trial and error.

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 0% and neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description hints at a mode switch that presumably maps to the `verify` boolean, but it never makes that mapping explicit, and `approval_id` (the only required parameter) is given no meaning at all — whether it is a Core approval identifier or something else must be guessed.

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 names an action ("Read the durable Core receipt or freshly compare stored/effective state") against a resource implicitly tied to an approval, but the phrasing is jargon-heavy and never plainly says it retrieves the execution result of an approval. It gestures at two modes without stating which one applies or how they differ in outcome, and it does not distinguish itself from nearby read tools like opencdr_reviews_read.

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 second line gives a real scoping rule: "Standalone Core only; Fleet uses reviewed distribution jobs" tells the agent this is the wrong tool in a Fleet deployment. However, it never names the alternative tool or the condition that selects the compare mode versus the receipt mode, so the guidance is exclusionary only.

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