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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: default returns a summary plus a web-app download link, include_file only attaches when the file fits, and extracted titles/abstracts are untrusted third-party text to treat as data. That injection warning is substantive behavioral guidance rarely found in 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?

Front-loaded trigger, then the artifact list, then default behavior, then the caveat — all in three compact sentences with no filler. The parenthetical format keys double as a reference without bloating the text.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (summary + download link, or attached file) and under what condition. For a simple 3-parameter read-only export, nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 100% and the enum values are already documented in the schema with matching glosses, so the description's format list largely repeats structured data. The only added nuance is the conditional nature of include_file ('if it fits'), which is also already in the schema default text.

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 ('export a file from the review') and enumerates the exact artifact set (screening_csv, refs_ris, refs_ris_all, audit_csv, rob_csv, protocol_md). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like revisia_report or revisia_prisma_flow_diagram, which produce non-file outputs.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the researcher needs a file from the review') and explains the default vs include_file path. It does not name alternatives or say when to prefer revisia_report / revisia_prisma_flow_diagram instead, which is the only gap.

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