Get review status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes well beyond that. It discloses cost ('cheap'), the exact fields carried, the meaning of each source_updated_by value ('reviewer' vs the default 'agent'), and a specific correctness hazard about sourcing revisions. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 key traits are front-loaded ('Cheap poll:') and nearly every clause carries new information about return values or the revision trap. The parenthetical issue references (#288, #289) are noise for an agent, and the nested quoting makes one sentence long and dense, which is the only real drag on structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe what comes back — and it does, enumerating the timestamps, revision, can_edit, and source_updated_by, plus how to interpret the latter. For a one-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and to act on the response correctly.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('the opaque review id'), the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the id beyond what the schema states, so it neither compensates further nor is required to.

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 opens with a specific framing — a 'cheap poll' returning source_updated, feedback_updated, and comments_updated timestamps for a review — which is a concrete verb-plus-resource statement. It implicitly separates itself from get_review (full object) and get_source (text payload) by scoping itself to timestamps plus a couple of small flags. An agent can tell which sibling to reach for without opening any schema.

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?

It names an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: for a guarded update_source, take the revision from get_source(with_revision=true), 'never from this poll.' It also gives a conditional action rule — if source_updated_by is 'reviewer', re-read the source before saving — which is when-to-use guidance with a concrete trigger. Both a when and a when-not are present.

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