covidence_set_criteria

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that criteria are persisted ('Store') and that Claude will automatically apply them during screening, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose whether calling the tool overwrites previous criteria, whether authentication is required, or any other side effects.

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 two sentences with no filler. It leads with the core action, then gives the important behavioral consequence, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and act on.

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?

For a simple two-parameter setter, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what object is operated on, what data is stored, and the downstream effect. It leaves authentication and overwrite behavior unstated, but those are minor for this straightforward tool.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters fully, including an example for the criteria string, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Store') with a clear object ('inclusion/exclusion criteria for a specific review'), and adds that Claude will apply them automatically during screening, which clarifies the tool's role. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like covidence_screen, but the described behavior makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context by noting that criteria will be applied automatically during screening sessions, implying this tool should be used before or in support of screening. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient to guide a correct call.

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