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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it scopes the output to policy/source-rights metadata and explicitly disclaims that it does not grant redistribution rights or certify freshness, preventing over-interpretation of results.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what it lists, followed by the output scope caveat. No repetition of the title and no wasted words.

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-value detail is not required from the description. Combined with the explicit scope disclaimers and zero parameters, the definition gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly; only the missing sibling differentiation keeps it from a 5.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing about argument semantics needs explaining and the description correctly does not invent any.

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 ("List") and two resources (available research tools, withheld legacy features) plus the metadata it returns, so the agent can tell what it produces. It is clearly distinct from siblings like data_health or research_network, though the name 'source_rights_status' is broader than the listed content, so the description is doing necessary disambiguation work.

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?

Usage is implied — you consult it to learn what research tools are usable in this release and which are withheld — but the description never says when to call it versus siblings such as data_health or research_network, nor any exclusions. Minimum viable routing guidance only.

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