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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by stating that the result is returned as a formatted table, which helps the agent understand the output style. It does not disclose ordering or pagination semantics, but those are less critical given the simple list operation.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the output format detail is useful without bloating the description.

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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is listed, whose data is returned, pagination support, and the output format. Slightly more detail about the returned table's columns or ordering would improve completeness, but it is adequate as-is.

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 has 100% description coverage for both limit and offset, so the parameters are already fully documented there. The description only adds a general mention of pagination support and provides no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (researches), and the scope (authenticated user), with pagination and return format noted. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list_* tools, but the resource name makes the distinction obvious.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to enumerate the authenticated user's researches, with pagination support. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a straightforward read-only list operation this is not a significant gap.

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