next_screening_batch

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description's read-framing ('Get the next titles/abstracts') never mentions any state change, consumption of the session, or the destructive effect of advancing/starting a round. Because annotations carry the safety profile the bar is lower, but the description still adds no behavioral context and slightly understates the mutation implied by the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble. It is efficient, though the trailing 'with the criteria' is vague and the '20 best-triaged articles' clause adds ambiguity rather than value.

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 schema documents two of three parameters. However, for a stateful tool with a destructive/round-advancing flag, the description never explains when advancing the session is appropriate or what it affects, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 coverage is 67%: run_id and new_round are documented in the schema, while batch_size is not. The description adds no parameter meaning and its '20 best-triaged articles' phrasing is mildly at odds with the default batch_size of 10. With the schema doing most of the work, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Get) and resource (next titles/abstracts of the session) and characterizes the payload as the 20 best-triaged articles returned with their criteria. The purpose is understandable, but it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling next_triage_batch, and the parenthetical '20 best-triaged articles' conflicts with the schema's default batch_size of 10, muddying exactly what comes back.

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, no named alternatives (e.g. next_triage_batch, bot_next), and no exclusions. The only conditional logic ('only when the researcher asks') lives in the new_round schema description, not in the tool description, so the description itself offers no routing help.

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