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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses the delivered artifacts (Word document and CSV carrying the official item wording), that progress and unanswered items are reported back, that notes land in the CSV but not the Word file, and that no account is needed. It also draws the key behavioral line that it only records the user's answers rather than interpreting the manuscript.

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 with the 'Use this when...' trigger, then inputs, then outputs, then the exclusion. It is a dense single paragraph with a couple of easily trimmed clauses (the repeated item counts, 'only the user's answers go in') but no wasted sentences.

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 three-parameter, fully documented generator with an output schema, everything the agent needs is present: what it returns, in which formats, what it deliberately does not do, and that no authentication is required. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining that each entry pairs an item status with where it is reported (page, section, table) and by noting the CSV-not-Word routing of notes. It does not mention the lang or title parameters, leaving those entirely to the schema.

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: produce the completed PRISMA 2020 reporting checklist (27 items plus the 12-item abstract list) for manuscript submission. The scope, item counts, and output formats (.docx and CSV) make it clearly distinguishable from the flow-diagram and report siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user needs the completed PRISMA 2020 reporting checklist... to submit with a manuscript') and a clear boundary ('It does not read the manuscript or decide whether an item is reported'). It never names a sibling or says when to use revisia_prisma_flow_diagram or revisia_report instead, so routing against alternatives is left to inference.

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