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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context beyond them: the default lightweight-while-active vs full-once-settled payload behavior, provisional charges, and a trust warning that evidence is untrusted reference data. This is substantive behavioral disclosure, not a restatement of the hints.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then default payload behavior, then parameter semantics, then operational notes. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the Publinio/alerts sentence is the least load-bearing and borders on extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still covers the default payload shape, polling cadence, credit settlement timing, and data-trust posture. For a three-parameter read tool this is well-rounded, with only the two identifier parameters unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains includeEvidence well (false omits evidence, true loads current observations), but brandId and runId are left to the self-evident schema names/patterns. Two of three parameters get no semantic enrichment, so this lands at the baseline rather than above 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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Read one brand-scoped research run') plus what it surfaces (source progress, credit settlement). The scope word 'one' cleanly separates it from the sibling list_research_runs without the agent opening either 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 concrete operating guidance: respect pollAfterSeconds, never restart a run to check progress (an implicit when-not pointing away from start_research), and when to flip includeEvidence. It stops short of naming alternative read tools such as list_research_runs explicitly, so 4 rather than 5.

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