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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only.' adds nothing. The useful addition is that action=summary results are paginated and include supporting quotes, which the annotations do not convey. It says nothing about page-size behavior, empty-result behavior, or what the figure payload contains.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that starts with the trigger condition, then branches cleanly into the two actions via parallel parentheticals. The final 'Read-only.' is redundant with annotations but is only two words.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both action branches and their return character well enough to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is navigational rather than behavioral: no guidance on when to prefer the standalone risk-of-bias figure 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 75%, and the description adds the one thing the schema cannot: it maps the bare enum values summary and figure to their respective outputs, notably that summary is paginated. limit, cursor and project_id are already documented in the schema, so no further explanation is required.

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 (risk-of-bias assessments per study and domain, plus supporting quotes) and enumerates the two modes of operation, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling revisia_risk_of_bias_figure, which on name alone appears to overlap with action=figure.

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?

The opening 'Use this when you need...' gives implied usage guidance and ties each need to an action value, which is helpful. However there are no exclusions, and the presence of revisia_risk_of_bias_figure alongside action=figure is left unexplained, so the agent cannot confidently choose between them.

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