review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-mutating behavior ('never a rewrite'), the output form ('findings with locations'), and a possible null result ('no significant editorial problems'). It doesn't cover potential input limits but is transparent about core behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and details what findings address; the second covers output format, constraints, and outcome expectations. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially explains the return value ('findings with locations' and the 'no significant editorial problems' possibility). It lacks a detailed findings structure, but for a review tool this is adequate to guide an agent.

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 100% and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so 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+resource ('Get editorial findings on a document') and enumerates concrete finding categories (inventories, structure, missing motivation, serialized prose). It also clearly distinguishes itself from the 'edit' sibling by stating 'never a rewrite'.

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 clearly sets the context: use this tool for editorial feedback on a document. It provides a when-not ('never a rewrite') and a possible outcome, but it does not explicitly name when to prefer this over 'create' or 'edit'.

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