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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns extra credit by disclosing a workflow-level trait the annotations cannot express: viewing does not constitute plan approval or recruitment launch, and human approval must be sought separately, which prevents the agent from treating a successful review as progress toward fieldwork.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the resource, followed by the two boundary warnings. Every sentence carries information, though the approval caveat is stated twice in slightly different forms ('does not approve a plan' / 'ask the human for approval separately'), which is mild redundancy.

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 no explanation, and with a single required uuid the surface is small. The description covers what the view is and what it is not, but it never positions this tool against the many adjacent read siblings (get_study, get_fielding_progress, inspect_research_session), which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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% and the sole parameter study_id has no format or meaning described in the description, so nothing is added beyond the schema. The parameter name and uuid format are largely self-explanatory, which keeps this at a baseline 3 rather than lower, but the description makes no attempt to compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Open an interactive, read-only view of the saved study plan and current fielding progress'), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from data-returning siblings like get_study or get_fielding_progress. It also explicitly rules out the two most confusable actions (approving a plan, launching recruitment), so an agent can separate it from approve_panel_launch without opening the 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 a clear when-not: this view is not an approval and does not launch recruitment, and the agent must obtain human approval separately before fieldwork. It does not, however, name the sibling tool to use for approval or explain when to prefer this view over get_study / get_fielding_progress, so routing among the read siblings is still partly inferential.

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