review_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' More usefully, it discloses that delivery_manifest is a non-writing view and points to review_export_delivery for actual file output. It doesn't add rate limits, auth needs, or output format detail, but with annotations carrying that load a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then adds a short safety note and three parallel view explanations. 'Read-only.' is mildly redundant with the annotations, but overall every sentence earns its place and the structure mirrors the enum values.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains — view selection, routing to the write tool, and the non-destructive nature of each view — is fully addressed. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow-level meaning to each view value (what the user needs, what to tell them to render) beyond the schema's more static descriptions. review_session_id semantics are left to the schema, which is fine given full coverage.

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 a specific verb (Read) and resource (Review Session, its next export request, or its delivery manifest), and explicitly names the sibling review_export_delivery as the write counterpart. An agent can distinguish this retrieval tool from review_start, review_compare, and review_export_delivery 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each of the three views: view=session to see where the review stands, view=export_request when the user must export a new bounce, view=delivery_manifest to summarize remaining work. It also routes the agent to review_export_delivery for the file-writing case, so the boundary against the alternative is stated, not inferred.

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