Get Study Validation Resolutions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: no audit serving event is added, no model is fitted or promoted, and statuses are re-evaluated against exact evidence. It also clarifies the human-only nature of sign-off and revocation. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three purposeful sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct value: the read scope, the human-only limitation, and the side-effect guarantees. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, rich annotations, and a single obvious parameter, the description covers purpose, side effects, and usage limitations well. The only meaningful gap is that study_id is undocumented in both the schema and the description, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent encountering this tool cold.

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 there is one required parameter, study_id. The description does not mention study_id at all, nor does it explain what values are valid or how the parameter scopes the returned resolutions. The parameter name is self-evident, but the description does not compensate for the missing 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read analyst validation resolutions and revocations'. It also clarifies the scope with 'current/stale/revoked status re-evaluated against exact evidence', which distinguishes it from nearby assessment or evaluation tools like assess_study_validation_pair or list_study_evaluations.

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 provides a clear when-not boundary: 'API keys cannot supply human independence sign-off or revoke it; use the signed-in owner UI.' This tells an agent not to attempt sign-off or revocation through this API. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling MCP tools for reading validation data, so it stops short of full 5.

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