record_screening_decisions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is partly covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint beyond the schema — include/exclude require a verbatim quote — which is useful. It omits mutation consequences, revision/conflict behavior, and the 25-item batch cap.

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 tight sentence with the key constraint front-loaded. It is appropriately sized and wastes no words, though the terse phrasing leaves room for more structure.

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 explained. However, for a mutating batch tool in a multi-step screening pipeline, the description omits revision/conflict semantics, batch limits, and workflow ordering that an agent needs to invoke it 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 67%, so the schema already documents run_id, revision, and the evidence field. The description reinforces the evidence rule but adds no meaning for run_id, revision, uid, or the decision enum that the schema does not already supply. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Record screening decisions'), which is a clear write operation distinct from read-oriented siblings like next_screening_batch or review_article. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself against those siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never references the workflow position (e.g., call after next_screening_batch, before the next batch/revision), nor does it mention alternatives. The agent must infer ordering from parameter names alone.

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