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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by stating the return format ('Returns a formatted table') and scoping to generated deep dives, going beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the return-format detail is added as a separate short sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list operation with one fully documented parameter and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers what is listed and the output format, though it does not specify table contents, ordering, or empty-result behavior, which would have made it fully complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the researchId parameter ('The research ID whose deep dives to list'). The tool description reinforces this but adds no extra parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('all deep dives generated for a specific research'), making the operation clear. The scope is explicit and distinct from sibling tools like get_deep_dive (single item), create_deep_dive, and delete_deep_dive.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to enumerate deep dives tied to a researchId. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as get_deep_dive or list_researches, so usage guidance is only implied.

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