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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's "Read-only" merely repeats that. The one piece of added context is that AI-suggested criteria awaiting researcher action are included in the result, which is genuinely useful. No pagination, auth, or scope behavior is described.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the usage condition, which is good. However, the bare fragment "action list_criteria" reads like leftover wiring rather than prose, and "Read-only" duplicates the annotation, so some content does not earn its place.

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 carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does list the main content categories (question, concepts, criteria, AI-suggested criteria). It omits how these are structured or what happens when a review has no criteria yet, leaving a meaningful gap for a retrieval tool.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not. The fragment "action list_criteria" only echoes the single enum value already in the schema, and project_id gets its meaning solely from the schema description ("Review id from revisia_projects list").

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 specific resource being retrieved: the review question, its concepts, and the eligibility criteria, plus pending AI-suggested criteria. That is more than a restatement of the title. It never mentions the mutating sibling revisia_question_act, so an agent cannot distinguish read vs. edit paths from the text alone.

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 review question..." gives an explicit triggering condition, which is clear usage context. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, though, so the agent must infer that revisia_question_act is the write counterpart.

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