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

Annotations already declare read-only, closed-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the key constraint 'without inventing external research,' which clarifies the closed-world nature and sets expectations for the agent. It also lists specific output components, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 description is two sentences: the first conveys the primary function with a clear action and deliverables, and the second discloses pricing. There is no redundant or irrelevant content, and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey both input and output expectations. It specifies the input type (research notes and source excerpts) and enumerates output elements, making the tool's role clear. It does not mention output format or limitations on input size, but for a parameterless tool this is sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter names or descriptions. The description does not need to explain individual parameters, but it does clarify that the tool consumes 'supplied research notes and source excerpts,' which is useful contextual information. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turn') and identifies the resource ('supplied research notes and source excerpts') with a clear list of outputs (themes, supported claims, evidence gaps, questions, executive brief). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like brief-audit by focusing on creation rather than auditing.

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?

The description implies the tool is for synthesizing user-provided research materials into a structured brief, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tool is referenced as an alternative, so usage context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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