review_paper

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: concrete cost ($1.50-$2.00), runtime (7-12 min), that confirm=false spends nothing, cache-served idempotent retries, prerequisite credentials (ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, local GROBID container), and exactly what data leaves the machine and to whom. It also constrains output behavior (evidence-first, no scores or accept/reject verdicts, never rewrite user text).

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, cost and the confirm workflow, which is the right order. However the 'Sent off your machine by this tool' paragraph and the following 'Privacy' paragraph restate the same egress facts (search queries and cited works' titles/DOIs/arXiv ids to the index, OpenAlex, Crossref and arXiv), which is redundant bulk in an already long description.

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 values need not be described, and the description still covers cost/limit transparency, the two-step confirmation flow, credential and container prerequisites, caching, privacy/egress, and the reporting style. For a long-running, paid, multi-step tool this is complete enough to invoke 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. It explains confirm (dry-run that returns estimate and hard limit), novelty semantics with concrete candidate counts and the recall/time tradeoff, and implicitly the pdf_path reuse rule on retries. Only venue is left unexplained, but its enum of venue names is self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run the full Reviewer Zero review of a paper PDF') and enumerates the covered dimensions (claims, prior work, citations, methodology, writing, format), so it is clearly the comprehensive sibling of check_format/check_citations/find_prior_work. It never explicitly says 'use the other tools for a cheaper subset', so the differentiation is implied through the word 'full' rather than spelled out.

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?

Gives an explicit mandatory workflow: 'ALWAYS call it first with confirm=false', show the estimate and hard limit to the user, then call again with confirm=true only after agreement. Also states the timeout retry policy and the tradeoff between novelty='full' (150 candidates, default) and novelty='lite' (60, quicker/cheaper, lower recall), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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