add_skipped_articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the mutation and safety profile. The description adds the useful downstream note that added articles 'then need screening', but leaves vague what 'add' targets (presumably the screening queue) and what result follows. Adequate but thin given annotations carry most of the burden.

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 with zero filler; the scoping fact comes first and the usage restriction second, both earning their place.

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, return values need no explanation, and annotations plus 100% param coverage handle safety and inputs. The description supplies the crucial 'skipped for no identifier' and 'needs screening' context, though it could clarify the effect of adding on run state.

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 100%, with both parameters (uids array capped at 50, run_id pattern) fully documented. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Add') and a precisely scoped resource ('articles that were skipped for having no DOI, PMID or PMCID'). This population is distinct from every sibling tool's scope, so an agent can identify it without opening a schema.

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?

'Use only when the researcher asks for them by name' gives an explicit when-to-use condition and an implicit exclusion (don't add them proactively). It stops short of naming a concrete alternative tool, but the constraint is clear enough to route correctly.

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