Synthesise Evidence

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the bar is lower, but the description adds rich behavioral detail: it 'assesses clinical/methodological/statistical heterogeneity before any pooling,' 'rates certainty... with GRADE,' and 'identifies gaps.' This goes beyond the annotation and describes the analytical process.

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 a single dense run-on paragraph with many clauses. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but could be more scannable with bullet points or shorter sentences. Every sentence earns its place, but the structure is not ideal.

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 synthesis tool with no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: input modes (studies provided or scaffolded), method selection, heterogeneity assessment, GRADE, and gap identification. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the output is sufficiently implied by the listed deliverables.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that 'studies' is optional and that omitting it scaffolds the full pipeline from protocol onward, which is not stated in the schema. It does not mention the 'review_type' parameter, but the enum descriptions already cover it.

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 ('Structure a synthesis') and clearly identifies the resource ('evidence across multiple studies'). It details exact activities (recommends review type, synthesis logic, heterogeneity assessment, method selection, GRADE, gap identification), distinguishing it from siblings like appraise-evidence or scope-question.

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 usage context: 'Provide the studies, or use it to scaffold a systematic review from the protocol stage.' It implies when to use (when synthesising multiple studies) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it.

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