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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: preserve Askli's counts and caveats, avoid adding conclusions or inflating confidence, and surface insufficiency of evidence plainly. It does not describe pagination, latency, or failure modes.

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 core action and followed by presentation constraints. Every sentence carries distinct guidance, though the phrasing is slightly conversational rather than maximally terse.

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?

For a single-parameter read with no output schema, the description adequately characterizes the returned artifact (a Decision Review with counts and caveats) and the handling expectations. Missing only explicit routing guidance relative to the other read tools.

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 100% schema description coverage on the single studyId parameter, the schema already documents its meaning and provenance. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 and resource ('Read a study's Decision Review'), which is distinct enough from siblings like get_transcript, get_plan, and get_study_status to be identifiable. It does not name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

There is no statement of when to invoke this tool versus get_plan, get_study_status, or get_transcript. The one conditional ('If there isn't enough evidence yet, say so plainly') concerns how to present results, not when to call the tool, so usage is only weakly implied.

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