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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the polling/eventually-complete nature of the resource and the null semantics of the country field when a source does not measure by country — real behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

One dense front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, followed by a short operational instruction. The long field enumeration is justified because there is no output schema, and no sentence is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so thoroughly, plus the polling termination condition. It omits failure modes (invalid id, failed/cancelled research) and pagination, which would be the remaining gap.

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% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its provenance ('returned by start_research or listed by list_research'). The description adds only 'by id' with no extra format or validation detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (returns) and resource (research by id) and enumerates the payload contents — status, headline numbers, ranked phrases, competitor overview, child researches. It is clearly distinct from a bare getter, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like get_report, compare_research, or list_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 gives a concrete usage protocol: 'Call repeatedly until status is completed and pending is 0', which tells the agent this is a polling endpoint and defines the termination condition. It does not, however, say when to prefer it over list_research (discovery) or get_report (exported output).

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