review_status

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation: period format support, savedViewId precedence, and the fact that an explicit period wins over a saved view's period. No contradictions.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core return values, and every sentence earns its place: output semantics, integration context, and parameter behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 absence of an output schema, the description appropriately discloses return contents and connects the tool to related workflows (lock_period/export). It does not mention pagination or filtering, but for this read-only review-coverage tool the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It compensates well for period and savedViewId by explaining the accepted formats ('YYYY-MM' or 'YYYY') and the precedence rule. workspaceId is left implicit, but it is a common scoping parameter and is marked required in the schema.

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 identifies a specific verb-resource pair: 'Review coverage for a period,' and enumerates exactly what is returned (approved/flagged/open counts, posted entries, review state, last reviewer, comment/flag counts). It gives enough identity to distinguish it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 provides clear usage context: this tool is 'the bar behind the review surface' and determines whether a period is ready for lock_period (A03) and export. It stops short of listing when-not-to-use conditions or naming alternative review-related tools, but the intended trigger is clear.

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