continue_review

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the iterative waiting mechanism and the terminal states, which goes beyond what annotations declare. This clarifies that multiple calls may be needed and defines the loop exit condition without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that captures the essential behavior and stop condition. It contains no redundant details, and for a tool with 5 parameters, the schema fully covers parameter specifics, so brevity is both appropriate and efficient.

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?

The description conveys the core polling loop and terminal decisions, sufficient for an agent to understand the call pattern. With annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, the description need not list parameters or response format. It could be more explicit about error handling or max retry expectations, but for a standard polling tool this is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed per-parameter descriptions (e.g., wait_seconds limits, finding_limit range), so the description adds no parameter-level value. As per baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate since the description effectively delegates parameter comprehension to 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 states a clear action ('Wait briefly') and a specific resource ('a long review') with an explicit termination condition ('until state is completed or failed'). It distinguishes itself from sibling start_review_before_ship by being the polling/waiting counterpart, making its role unambiguous.

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 implies a polling loop but does not explicitly state when to call it, such as after start_review_before_ship or check_my_app. It lacks any mention of alternative tools or exclusion criteria, leaving preparation and sequencing to caller inference. The schema's review_id description helps but is not part of the tool description itself.

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