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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: this is a polling endpoint that must be re-called until status=completed and pending=0. It does not cover pagination or result-size behavior, but the lifecycle disclosure is the important one for this tool.

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: the payload is front-loaded and the operational instruction follows. The enumerated return list is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what to expect; no filler or repetition of the name/title.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing return contents, and it does so thoroughly while also explaining the polling termination condition. A minor gap is the absence of any hint about how to find an id if the agent has none, which the schema covers only implicitly.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required id whose description already explains provenance (returned by start_research or listed by list_research). The description's "by id" adds nothing beyond the schema, 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?

"Returns the current state and findings of a research by id" gives a clear verb and resource, and the enumerated payload (status, headline numbers, candidate phrases, competitor overview, child researches, skipped stages) paints a precise picture. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_report, list_research, or compare_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?

The instruction "Call repeatedly until status is completed and pending is 0" is actionable usage guidance for a polling tool. It stops short of when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative (e.g. compare_research or get_report) or a prerequisite, so selection between siblings is left to inference.

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