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

With only idempotentHint in the annotations, the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the model is not started, credits are not charged, uploads use short-lived PUT authorizations plus upload_id, bare OSS paths and arbitrary remote URLs are rejected, and expired links should be retried with the same request. It does not fully describe the lifecycle of the prepared task if upload is never completed, which keeps it short of a 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: purpose and non-effects come first, followed by per-task requirements and upload/retry handling. Most sentences earn their place, though the semicolon-heavy packing makes it slightly harder to scan than an ideal 5.

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 an eight-parameter preparation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main workflow: what is frozen, what is not started, task-specific file requirements, the returned PUT authorization/upload_id, the follow-up call, and retry behavior. It leaves out prepared-task expiry/lifecycle and more detailed error conditions, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 only 38% across eight parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds important semantics for file roles by tying task_type to required roles (data, manuscript, references, review_comments) and clarifies the upload origin restriction, but it does not explain request_id, research_area, response_language, media-type limits, size limits, or filename uniqueness rules beyond what the schema already says.

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 a specific verb and resource: it freezes the research question, model, and material list for three named task types. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from start_research_task by saying it does not start the model or deduct credits, so an agent can route correctly without opening another 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?

It gives explicit task-type conditions: data_analysis needs at least one data file, citation_audit needs manuscript and references, and paper_revision needs manuscript and review_comments. It also names the next step (complete_research_upload) and the retry rule for expired links, leaving little to infer.

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