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

Annotations already cover the safety posture (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world). The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns only the latest 30 runs, includes statuses and credit receipts, and does not initiate new collection. It does not discuss pagination or auth, but with annotations that is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every sentence earns its place: scope and limit, alternative routing, and an exclusion.

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 need not be explained. The description gives the key operational facts an agent needs: bounded list size (30), contents (statuses and credit receipts), brand scoping, and the non-collection behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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 0% for the single required parameter brandId, so the description should compensate. It says 'for this brand', which clarifies the parameter's scope beyond the bare schema name, but adds no format, example, or constraint details. With only one self-evident parameter this is minimally adequate.

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 ('List the latest 30 saved research runs') along with scope ('for this brand') and contents ('with statuses and credit receipts'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_research_run by directing that tool for 'evidence and the brief'.

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?

Names the alternative tool (get_research_run) and the condition for using it ('for evidence and the brief'), and adds an explicit exclusion ('No new collection') that rules out starting research. This leaves little to inference.

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