Peer Review

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

The annotations already mark it readOnly=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it produces a structured report with specific sections and that it composes other tools, which is useful behavioral context about internal orchestration. No contradictions.

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 primary purpose, followed by a compact list of report contents and composition behavior. No filler.

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?

The description covers the output structure, recommendation scale, and relationship to sub-tools. Since there is no output schema, this description carries the burden well. It doesn't mention edge cases but is largely complete for selection and invocation.

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%, and each parameter (manuscript, venue, study_type, review_type) has a clear description. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, so 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 opens with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('peer-review pass over a manuscript'), and enumerates the report contents (summary, significance, issues, methodological critique, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling sub-tools that it composes.

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?

It states that the tool composes appraise-evidence, check-reporting, plan-analysis, and assess-ethics for deep dives, implying it is the umbrella tool for a full review. However, it does not explicitly list exclusion criteria or when to prefer an alternative.

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