list_study_attempts

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 does disclose one real behavioral trait -- results include unsuccessful and cancelled attempts, i.e. no status filtering -- but says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, rate limits, or whether pagination must be followed to completion to get all attempts.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the key behavioral detail (attempts are preserved regardless of outcome) is front-loaded. Its weakness is under-specification rather than verbosity, so it scores well on structure alone.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape detail isn't required, but for a paginated list tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations the description leaves too much open: nothing on ordering, on how many attempts a caller should expect, or on how this differs from the single-attempt and cancel 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% across three parameters (study_id, limit, offset), so the description needs to compensate and does not. 'Page all' vaguely implies pagination, but there is no explanation of what study_id scopes, what limit defaults to, or whether offset-based paging is the mechanism.

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 verb 'Page' plus the resource 'candidate attempts' signals a paginated listing, but the wording drifts from the tool name: it says 'candidate attempts' rather than study attempts, and never mentions that results are scoped to the required study_id. An agent can guess it lists attempts for a study, but the phrasing is loose enough to be ambiguous next to siblings like get_study_attempt or list_runs.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer get_study_attempt for a single attempt, or to use this tool to enumerate attempts before cancelling/finalizing them. The clause about preserving unsuccessful and cancelled attempts hints at a contrast with some filtering alternative, but that alternative is never named.

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