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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is a restatement rather than new information. The genuinely additive parts are the disclosure of record categories (has full text / not retrieved) and that decisions include who decided and why, plus pagination — but nothing about volume, ordering, or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the usage trigger and then enumerates the returned content; no filler. The heavy nested parentheses make it dense to parse, but every clause carries substantive content.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back (inclusion state per record, retrieval status, decision attribution), which is the main gap a list tool would otherwise have. Combined with fully covering annotations for the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only ordering and pagination mechanics remain unstated.

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 coverage is 75%: limit, cursor and project_id are already self-documented in the schema, while the 'action' enum has no schema description at all. The description's '(action list, paginated)' partially compensates by implying the only action is a paginated list, but adds no semantics about cursor lifetime or row ordering.

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 names the resource precisely (the full-text stage: which included records have a PDF/PMC text, which were not retrieved, and the recorded decisions with reviewer and reason) and implies a paginated list operation via '(action list, paginated)'. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling revisia_fulltext_act, so an agent must infer that this is the read side and that one is the write side.

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 full-text stage' gives a context trigger but no explicit when-not or alternative. The 'Read-only' tag hints that mutations belong elsewhere, but revisia_fulltext_act is never named as the counterpart, leaving routing to inference.

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