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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the action is a state mutation, what resources or turns it consumes, what it returns, or whether idempotency is required to prevent double submission. The single parenthetical adds no behavioral context.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, with no padding or rambling. But the single parenthetical pointing at a REST endpoint earns little of its place for an MCP agent, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.

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 a state-mutating game action with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs before invoking it. Nothing about effects, costs, or return values is present.

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% for both parameters, and the description says nothing about city_id (which city's research? must it be owned?) or idempotency_key (what retry semantics does it enable?). With zero compensation for an undocumented schema, this is a clear failure.

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 restates the tool name ('action research') and points at a REST endpoint, so it is essentially tautological. It never says what 'research' accomplishes in the game (e.g. generating research points, advancing a tech tree), which is needed to distinguish it from siblings like build, train_assign, or install_ram.

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?

No indication of when to use this action versus the ~30 sibling actions, no prerequisites (turn phase, city ownership, cost), and no exclusions. The only signal is that it maps to POST /api/research, which an agent cannot act on without the API docs.

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