Check Reporting Standard

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 transparency by detailing the output (each item marked Reported/Partial/Not reported/N/A with location and gap, plus critical omissions), which goes beyond annotations. It does not mention any side effects or limitations, but the read-only profile is covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and outcome. The checklist list and report format are packed into efficient phrasing with no 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?

With only 2 parameters and full schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains the tool's purpose, selection mechanism, and return format. It gives an agent enough to decide when to use it and what to expect, even without an output schema.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description only reinforces the study_type-to-checklist selection logic, adding no syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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?

Description opens with 'Validate a manuscript or draft against the right reporting checklist' — a specific verb+resource. It enumerates the exact checklist standards (PRISMA, CONSORT, etc.) and notes automatic selection by study design, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like peer-review or appraise-evidence.

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?

States 'Use before submission or as part of peer review,' giving a clear context for when to invoke. It also mentions selection by study design but does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools or list exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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