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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it details the returned contents and explicitly discloses what is omitted (long texts, per-study list) and where to find it. It doesn't mention read-only status, auth requirements, or error behavior, but for a retrieval tool it provides strong behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core resource description, then a clarifying exclusion sentence. Dense but every clause adds useful return-value detail; no obvious filler.

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?

The description does a good job describing return values in the absence of an output schema, but it is incomplete on parameter meaning and usage context. An agent still lacks guidance on what 'space' does and how to select this tool over its many siblings.

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 0% and the description does not mention either parameter. It never explains 'review_id' (required) or 'space' (with default empty string), so it fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'one ingested review' and enumerates the returned contents (summary, graph/space, files, search log, verification, screening basis, full-text retrieval). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly excluding long texts and per-study lists, but it lacks a strong action verb and doesn't name sibling tools for contrast.

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 hints at usage by stating what is left out and where to read omitted content ('from the graph or the review page'), which implies this tool is for reviewing metadata rather than full texts or study lists. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like list_reviews, studies, or text.

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