run_document_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that protocol_complete is derived from declared text surface and page coverage, and that semantic_queries are stored but not executed in v0.1.1.1, but it does not state side effects, permissions, read/write behavior, or rate limits.

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 description is short and front-loads the core action, then adds two sentences of relevant behavioral detail. The backticked terms and line breaks make it slightly technical, but there is little wasted text.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It omits usage routing, parameter meanings, and side-effect expectations, leaving substantial gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It explains the behavior of semantic_queries as stored but not executed, but it leaves item_id, claim, and search_terms largely undefined beyond their names.

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 and resource: running a server-side PAGE_INDEXED_TEXT review protocol for an exact claim. It distinguishes the tool from generic evidence gathering by naming a review protocol, but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as find_evidence or build_evidence_matrix.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives among the sibling tools. It only implies usage by saying the tool runs a review protocol for an exact claim.

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