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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a limitation (never approves decisions) but does not describe what the returned boundary actually looks like (format, content, or structure), nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or preconditions. For a zero-parameter tool, more detail on the output is expected.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the primary purpose, and the second clarifies a key limitation. No redundant words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple zero-parameter tool, the description is minimal. However, without an output schema, the agent has no idea what the returned boundary is (e.g., a string, a number, a policy statement). The description mentions 'boundary' but does not explain its nature or how to interpret it, leaving an important gap for an agent that must act on the result.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it does not introduce any implicit parameters, so the score is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('the mandatory human-review boundary for AX-SCI-001'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it never approves patentability, novelty, publication, or research-priority decisions, which sets it apart from ax_sci_001_assess_evidence.

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 description gives context about what the tool does and what it does not do (never approves decisions), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when to use this vs. siblings. The exclusion of approval tasks is implied guidance, but no direct 'use this when...' instruction is given.

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