Suggest EHN Review Board

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. The description adds useful context about anonymity, redaction of names, and that posting/initial analysis is free—behaviors beyond the annotations that inform the user about what this tool actually returns.

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 bilingual (Japanese and English), which repeats the same information. While this adds length, it's still front-loaded with the core purpose and stays under six sentences. Not perfectly concise, but acceptable for a simple no-param tool.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists, read-only), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what the user receives (guide and URL). There are no gaps that would leave the agent uncertain about invocation.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete by default. Per the baseline for no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details that don't exist.

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 clearly states the tool returns a guide and submission URL for EHN, an anonymous third-party review board. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from siblings like audit_estimate or check_red_flags, which are about direct analysis rather than suggesting a review platform.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when the user asks for a second opinion on an estimate or where to have one reviewed.' This provides clear context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the 'use when' phrasing is sufficient to guide selection among siblings.

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