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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description's "Read-only" merely restates that. The only added behavioral value is characterizing the artifacts (e.g., the PRISMA diagram comes with its counts, the Methods paragraph is citable) with no mention of generation cost, latency, or whether outputs are stored or computed.

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 with the trigger condition first and the three action-to-output pairs enumerated in parallel. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description usefully sketches what each action returns, which is the main gap it needed to fill. Remaining omissions (output format, whether the manuscript is generated on demand, overlap with prisma-related siblings) are minor for a read-only report 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 description coverage is 50% and the undocumented parameter is exactly the one that matters: the action enum. The description supplies the meaning of all three enum values, which is genuine added semantics. It adds nothing for project_id, but the schema already documents that as the review id sourced from revisia_projects.

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 concrete deliverables (PRISMA 2020 flow diagram with counts, citable Methods paragraph, manuscript draft) and maps each to an action value, so the resource is unambiguous. It falls short of 5 because it never distinguishes this tool from siblings that sound highly overlapping, notably revisia_prisma_flow_diagram, revisia_prisma_checklist, and revisia_report_act.

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's outputs" plus a per-action mapping effectively tells an agent which action yields which artifact, which is real selection guidance. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing (e.g., when to use revisia_prisma_flow_diagram instead, or that mutations belong to revisia_report_act), so it stops short of the top score.

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