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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts not in the structured data: results are scoped to the authenticated user and returned as a formatted table (output shape, which matters since there is no output schema).

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and the return format is appended last. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, pagination, and return format. Minor gaps remain — result ordering, behavior on empty results, and how it relates to list_deep_dives/list_brand_names.

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 100% (limit with default 20/max 100, offset with default 0), so the schema fully documents both parameters. The phrase 'pagination support' merely restates the schema without adding syntax, ordering, or bounds details.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (researches) and scopes it to 'the authenticated user'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like list_deep_dives or get_research, so the agent must infer which listing tool applies to which resource.

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?

Usage is only implied: listing is the natural read counterpart to create_research/delete_research, and 'pagination support' hints at large result sets. There is no explicit when-to-use, no pointer to get_research for a single item, and no exclusions.

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