related_review_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally, but the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not explain what "related" means, how relations are computed (via basis/intent?), what the limits bound, or what the response 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?

The text is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose and no structure at all. Every word it contains is already available from the tool name.

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?

This is a nested-object tool with an idempotency key, three distinct numeric limits, and two untyped object parameters, with no output schema to describe results. The description does nothing to close any of those gaps, making it wholly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool hides six nested properties (submission_id, basis, intent, limit, scan_limit, session_limit) plus an idempotency_key, none of which are documented. The description supplies no meaning for any of them, so an agent cannot know what basis/intent accept or how the three separate limits interact.

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 "related review context" is a bare restatement of the tool name with the underscores removed, so it is tautological by definition. It names no verb and no resource scope, and gives no way to distinguish it from siblings such as review_context, get_change_review, or reviews.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of any alternative. Given the crowded sibling set (review_context, get_change_review, context, reviews, why), an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over the near-duplicate review_context.

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