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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: it returns only the index, not the full reports, and absence from the list means no written coverage, not a negative signal about the asset. This is valuable operational context not encoded in the annotations.

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 three compact sentences with the core purpose first, followed by the routing instruction and the coverage caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (index), what is not returned (reports), how to get the full data (get_research_report), and how to interpret absence from the list. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without further inference.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed.

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 states the specific operation: listing assets that currently have a generated research report available. It also clearly differentiates itself from get_research_report by saying it returns the index, not the report bodies, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 explicitly routes the agent to get_research_report with a symbol when the report body is needed, and it explains how to interpret an asset missing from the list as a coverage statement rather than an asset problem. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative guidance.

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