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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that effects with failed replication are included (not hidden), how to filter them, and confirms the tool is free with no payment or account needed. This gives the agent clear behavioral expectations.

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?

Four sentences, each purposeful: purpose, content details, filtering note, and cost/access. No redundant or vague phrasing. The description is efficiently front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 no output schema, the description partially describes what the result contains (citation, replication status, effect size, boundary conditions). It explains key filtering but not pagination or default behavior. For a query tool with 7 optional parameters, the description provides adequate but not exhaustive context.

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 only 29% (2 of 7 params have descriptions). The description adds context for actionable_only (explains it excludes effects needing human review) but does not elaborate on domain, search, replication_status, limit, or offset. The parameter names and schema enums provide some clarity, but the description could more fully compensate for the low 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?

The description clearly states 'Query a curated corpus of behavioural science effects,' specifying both the action (query) and the resource (effects). It lists key attributes like canonical citation, replication status, effect size, and boundary conditions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like psych_biases or psych_heuristics.

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 explains that the tool is free and requires no account, and advises using actionable_only to filter out contested/failed replications. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over similar sibling tools (e.g., psych_biases) or provide exclusion criteria.

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