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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, and the description's restatement of 'Read-only' is redundant. What it does add beyond the annotations is the result shape (per-study rows, per-variable columns, per-cell verification flag) and the paginated nature plus the with_quotes output-size tradeoff — genuinely useful for a tool with no output schema.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the main clause and packs row/column/cell semantics, pagination, and the quotes option into parentheticals. Slightly run-on, and the trailing 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation, but nothing major is wasted.

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 5-parameter paginated read with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: what a row is, what a column is, what a cell contains, how verification is signaled, and how quotes change the payload. It doesn't explain paging flow (next_cursor chaining) or column variability across projects, which would round it out.

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 80%, so limit, cursor, project_id, and with_quotes are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the with_quotes behavior and the pagination concept without adding format, cursor lifetime, or ordering details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and its exact shape: 'data extraction table: one row per included study, one column per variable, each cell with its value and whether its supporting quote was verified.' An agent immediately knows what it gets back, though it never names sibling revisia_extraction_act or explains why this read variant differs from the write one.

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?

'Use this when you need the data extraction table' gives an implied trigger but no exclusions and no alternative named. The agent must infer on its own that revisia_extraction_act is the counterpart for editing cells rather than reading the table.

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