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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations: it consumes a limited resource (weekly research allowance) and requires admin privileges, neither of which is captured in the annotations. Annotations declare non-readOnly and non-destructive, consistent with a refresh operation. Missing detail on what 'refresh' entails or failure modes, but the resource and auth disclosures are meaningful.

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, each carrying unique information (action, timing, cost, restriction). Zero filler; front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs (cost, auth, timing) for a single-parameter mutation tool. Could mention idempotency behavior briefly, but annotations plus schema largely cover it.

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 100%, so the idempotency_key parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 per rules.

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+resource ('Refreshes the research on the core watchlist') and clarifies timing ('now, instead of at the next cycle'). Distinguishes from sibling research_competitor by scoping to the watchlist, but doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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?

Explains when to use it ('now, instead of at the next cycle') and states the cost ('one update from the weekly research allowance') and restriction ('Admin only'). No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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