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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by clarifying 'Reads only; spends nothing' — a cost/quota signal — and by explaining that `quota` reports remaining plan allowance. It does not cover pagination behavior, which is minor for a bounded 1-50 limit.

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?

The first sentence front-loads the scope and ordering (newest first); the second covers usage; the rest enumerates return fields. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema. Slightly long, but no wasted sentences.

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 shape and does so thoroughly: `id`, `kind`, `phrase`, `status` values, `mode`, `created_at`, `url`, `total_count` semantics, and `quota`. Combined with annotations and the simple one-param schema, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 `limit` parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or default information beyond it, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Lists) and resource (researches the account started itself), scopes it to the account's own researches 'without the checks they spawned', and identifies the resource sub-types (niche scans of a phrase, descriptions of an idea). An agent can distinguish this from sibling list/get tools 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 states when to use it: 'to find the id of an earlier research before get_research, get_report, compare_research or follow_niche, or to see what is still running.' It names the downstream siblings that consume the returned id, giving clear routing away from those tools toward this one.

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