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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses pagination (10 per page with limit and cursor), two detail levels, and a meaningful domain behavior: it respects blind dual screening, which an agent must know before interpreting actor fields. It does not state what blind mode hides from the result.

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 content is dense but the second sentence is a fragment that wedges 'or action conflicts' onto the end of the results clause, making the action split read awkwardly. Front-loading the trigger is good, but the structure costs clarity on the two-action choice.

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 correctly spends its words on return shape (per-record fields, criterion verdicts, quote-verbatim flag) and pagination. The only shortfall is not saying how conflicts records differ in shape from results records.

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 83% and already documents every parameter, yet the description adds actionable meaning: that the decision filter only applies to the results action, and what concise vs full actually return. This goes past restating the enum descriptions.

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 (title/abstract screening decisions) and the exact payload: per-record decision, human vs AI actor, per-criterion verdict with reason, and a verbatim-quote flag. It is clearly a read tool distinct from the act siblings via 'Read-only', though it never names revisia_screening_act explicitly.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when you need the title/abstract screening decisions') and routes between the two actions, defining conflicts as records left in 'review' or in reviewer disagreement. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a pointer to the sibling that records decisions.

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