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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not in the annotations: the call is free and triggers no calculation or provider request, which is decisive for an agent budgeting research calls.

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 short sentences with no filler; the resource list comes first and the cost/no-side-effect caveat second. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description still enumerates the three main content areas. For a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only sibling differentiation 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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 concrete verb ('Read') and names three specific artifacts it returns: the research contract, supported capabilities, and topic guidance. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_research_balance or get_research_status, though the overlap with get_research_guide ('topic guidance') is not addressed.

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 phrase 'Free; no research calculation or provider request' implies this is a safe zero-cost call to make before spending, but it never states when to use this instead of get_research_guide or get_profile. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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