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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it details the full payload shape and the workflow constraint that its IDs are the input edit_research expects. It doesn't cover behavior for an unknown or invalid researchId, which keeps it below 5.

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 return contract and followed by usage. The long field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place given there is no output schema. Nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so thoroughly, including nested topics and the IDs needed downstream. Only the failure mode for a missing/inaccessible researchId is left unstated, a minor gap for a single-param read.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents researchId at 100% coverage including its provenance ('as returned by list_researches'). The description reinforces that the returned IDs feed edit_research, which is mild added meaning, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one research study from Frank in full') and enumerates the exact contents returned, including nested topics/questions/follow-ups. An agent can distinguish it from list_researches (plural listing) and edit_research (mutation) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance: 'Read it before changing a study, and to show the user what a study currently asks,' which ties it to edit_research as a prerequisite read. It does not name an explicit when-not or a competing alternative for the read case (e.g. list_researches for discovery), so it falls short of the top band.

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