Get exact-head pull request review state

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'Head mismatch or partial evidence prevents a definitive satisfied result' and 'bounded evidence', clarifying the tool's limitations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with 'Read-only', efficient and structured. Every word earns its place without repetition or fluff.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return details are covered there. The description covers the key behavioral nuance (exact head, partial evidence, definitive result) well enough for a tool of moderate 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 descriptions cover all four parameters (100% coverage), and the description's 'expected PR head' aligns with expected_head_sha but adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Clear verb 'aggregate' and specific resource: review, requested-reviewer, and unresolved-thread evidence. The qualifier 'only for an exact expected PR head' distinguishes it from generic PR review listing tools like gh_get_pr_reviews or gh_get_pr.

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 description clarifies that this is for 'an exact expected PR head' and warns that head mismatch or partial evidence invalidates a definitive result, implying when it's appropriate to use. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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