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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes further: 'Reads only; spends nothing' rules out quota consumption, and it explains that `quota` reports researches left in the plan, plus the meaning of each status value. It stops short of describing pagination/ordering behaviour beyond 'newest first' or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Purpose and scoping come first, then routing guidance, then field semantics — a logical front-loaded order with no filler. The field enumeration earns its place because there is no output schema to document return values.

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 takes on return-value documentation and does so field by field, including null semantics for descriptions and the status enum values. Combined with routing guidance and the 'spends nothing' note, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the single `limit` parameter (1-50, default 10) is fully documented in the schema; the description never mentions it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries all parameter meaning, though it does add useful semantics for the returned `total_count` and `quota` fields.

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 and resource plus precise scope: researches the account started itself, newest first, excluding the checks they spawned. An agent can distinguish it from get_research or list_projects without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the downstream alternatives (get_research, get_report, compare_research, follow_niche) and the condition for using this tool first — resolving a research id. It also covers the secondary use case of seeing what is still running, so nothing 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.