acc_get_review

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool is read-only, but the description adds valuable context by noting that approve/reject decisions cannot be made via API and that the tool is intended for monitoring and chasing. This provides a behavioral nuance beyond the annotation, clarifying what the tool cannot do and its practical purpose.

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 description is only two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the additional behavioral note in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant content 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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (not shown but present) and a read-only annotation, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its key limitation (no decisions via API). It lacks details about error handling or edge cases, but for a single-item retrieval tool with optional flags and a rich output schema, the description is adequately complete.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema (e.g., it mentions 'optionally the files' which maps to include_files, but the schema already states this). With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('one review's detail'), then enumerates the exact data returned (status, current step, due date, per-step progress, optional files). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like acc_list_reviews, which return collections rather than a single item's detail.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('use this to monitor and chase') and provides an exclusion ('step decisions can only be made in the ACC UI, not via API'). While it does not name an alternative tool for listing reviews, the phrase 'one review's detail' implicitly differentiates from list tools, offering clear context without explicit sibling naming.

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