Appraise Evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the appraisal methodology (classifies design, applies RoB frameworks, assesses magnitude/precision rather than significance alone, rates certainty with GRADE, judges applicability). This is substantial added transparency.

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?

Three sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence gives the core purpose, the second details the methodology, and the third provides input guidance. Every sentence earns its 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?

For a complex appraisal tool with no output schema, the description does a strong job of explaining what the tool does and what the scorecard includes (design, risk-of-bias, result interpretation, certainty, applicability). It covers the full scope of the tool's behavior sufficiently for an agent to select and 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal param-specific meaning beyond the schema, though it does clarify that 'study' should be the abstract or full text. This aligns with schema descriptions, so no extra compensation is needed.

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+resource: 'Critically appraise a single study and return a structured scorecard.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'appraise-source' by focusing on a single study and enumerating the appraisal components (RoB 2, GRADE, applicability).

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 clear context for when to use: when you have a single study to appraise, and it suggests feeding an abstract or full text (e.g., from fetch-url). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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