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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limits ('3 calls per hour per IP'), pricing ('$0.020 per call'), and the nature of the content ('Facts and flags only, never advice'). These are useful behavioral traits beyond a simple lookup.

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 description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The first sentence is long but informative, followed by a short limitation statement and practical pricing information. Every sentence has value, except perhaps the list of examples could be trimmed, but it helps clarify the tool's scope.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, example use cases, limitations, and usage costs. It does not explicitly state return format, but 'Facts and flags' hints at the output nature. Overall, it is complete enough for a simple lookup tool.

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 schema already describes the single parameter 'q' with high coverage. The description adds extra meaning by mentioning 'role' as an accepted input type (not in schema) and provides examples of research topics (dead redemption bridges, ticker collisions), which clarifies what kind of queries are expected.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to check if a research note exists on an asset, protocol, chain, or role. It uses a specific verb ('Do we hold a research note') and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing qualitative insights that price/TVL data do not provide.

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 description implies when to use the tool (for qualitative research notes, not price/TVL data) and includes a limitation ('Facts and flags only, never advice'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it compared to sibling tools like chain, exit_cost, launch, or pool.

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