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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is a deprecated alias and classifies it as read-only/synchronous/forbidden for task support, which is marginally useful, but it does not explain what 'evidence' is returned, whether the deprecated alias behaves identically, or any rate or auth constraints.

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 first clause is front-loaded and clear, but the description then pivots into orchestration/display instructions ('Never display raw JSON...', 'Mention IDs only when useful...') that are generic presentation policy rather than tool-specific guidance. It is moderately sized but mixes purpose with output-formatting policy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. But with 0% parameter description coverage and 20 parameters, plus no clarification of how the deprecated alias differs from its replacement, the description leaves real gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call 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 description coverage is 0% across 20 parameters, which is a substantial documentation gap, but the description does not discuss any parameters at all. Baseline for a well-schematized tool would be 3; here the schema has types and constraints but no descriptions, and the description does not compensate, so it stays at 3 rather than rising.

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 it reads a 'World Intelligence V3 event with evidence' and is 'advertiser-scoped', which is a specific resource, but it also explicitly declares itself a 'Deprecated alias for get_world_research_event' – so it does not tell the agent why it exists alongside its canonical sibling or when to prefer the non-deprecated tool. Among many get_world_research_* siblings, the distinction is only that this one is the deprecated alias.

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 says to use assistantSummary first and suggests a next LeanrIQ action, but there is no guidance on when to call this tool vs. get_world_research_event or the many other get_world_research_* siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named.

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