Assess Ethics

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 behavior context by stating it 'Returns a structured assessment with required approvals, risk flags, and mitigations' and lists the ethical frameworks applied, going beyond the annotation.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences. The long list of ethical frameworks is necessary for a tool this complex, and every clause contributes information without filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description states the return format ('structured assessment with required approvals, risk flags, and mitigations'). With all parameters documented and a clear scope, it is complete for an ethics-review 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning beyond the schema, particularly for uses_ai and involves_humans, by linking them to responsible-AI disclosure and data-governance/privacy checks.

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 opens with the specific action 'Run a research-ethics and integrity review' and names the resource. It enumerates the ethical frameworks and assessment outputs, making it clearly distinct from siblings like governance-check and peer-review.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: 'as a pre-study ethics pre-check and within peer-review.' It provides clear usage context but does not mention when not to use or directly compare with overlapping sibling tools.

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