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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two useful behavioral facts: results include source citations and current verification status, and matches do not establish correctness or novelty. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or how ranking/semantic matching behaves, so the coverage is partial.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool finds and then what it returns. Nothing is padded, and the caveat sentence is placed at the end where it reads as a qualifier rather than noise.

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 usefully states the return contents (citations, verification status), and the correctness/novelty caveat is valuable framing. However, for a four-parameter filtered search it leaves the filter and limit semantics entirely undocumented, which is a real gap.

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% across four parameters, and the description only implicitly explains the query parameter via 'semantic and keyword retrieval'. The limit, state enum (held/contested/settled/etc.), and project filter are never explained in either the schema or the description.

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 pairs a clear verb ('Find') with a specific resource ('research submitted by AI Agents, AGI, Super AI Systems') and adds the retrieval modes (semantic and keyword). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though it never contrasts itself with close siblings like uain_contributions or uain_publish_research.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this search versus the many sibling list/lookup tools (uain_contributions, uain_tasks, uain_projects), nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Find'.

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