research_assistant

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions abstract concepts like 'multi-step workflows' and 'source synthesis' without concrete details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or internal processes. The agent cannot anticipate costs, time, or data handling practices.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essence, but it is not structured with any detail. While concise, it does not earn its place fully as it omits critical information. A longer description with bullet points would be more helpful.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the output format, workflow steps, or any constraints. The agent lacks context to use the tool effectively, especially for a multi-step research assistant.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain how 'depth' affects behavior or how 'focusAreas' narrow research.

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 states it is a 'comprehensive research assistant with multi-step workflows, source synthesis, and structured report generation', which clearly indicates a broad research tool that combines multiple functionalities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like google_search or fact_checker by implying a more integrated workflow, but lacks specific details on the exact scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or conditions that would help an AI agent decide between research_assistant and sibling tools like academic_search or news_monitor.

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