acc_list_reviews

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what reviews are and the OPEN filter example, but does not mention pagination behavior or response format. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the verb, resource, scope, and an example use case.

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 the output schema exists and readOnlyHint is present, the description captures the core purpose and a common scenario. It does not explain all filters, but the schema handles that. Adequate for a list operation.

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 covers status and workflow_id filters with descriptions; description clarifies project scope and gives an OPEN example. However, it does not add meaning for limit/offset, and the 60% schema coverage leaves some gap.

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 clearly it lists document reviews (approval processes) in a project, with an explicit example of OPEN reviews. This distinguishes it from siblings like acc_get_review (single review) and acc_create_review.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('daily CDE follow-up') and mentions filtering by status (OPEN), but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use. The context is clear, just lacking exclusions.

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