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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is free because credit was already charged, it returns the compact summary shape of create_research, and it points to get_research for full reports. These details do not contradict 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then covering cost and output routing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 single-parameter retry operation, the description covers the triggering status, cost behavior, return summary, and follow-up path to get_research. Combined with the output schema and annotations, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 already describes the single id parameter with 100% coverage, including format and a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable but not enriching.

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 action ('retry') on a specific resource ('research') and scopes it to research whose generation failed or is stuck. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting its return matches create_research and that full reports come from get_research.

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?

It explicitly defines when to use the tool ('status failed, or stuck without a result'), clarifies that no additional credit is charged, and directs agents to get_research when a full report is needed. This gives clear decision guidance versus alternative tools.

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