research

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool performs web search and LLM synthesis, which implies external API calls and potential latency, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, cost implications, privacy considerations, or what happens when research fails. The description is insufficient for a tool that likely makes external 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?

The description is extremely concise (8 words) and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying the action ('research'), resource ('topic'), and methods ('web search and LLM synthesis'). There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 complexity of a research tool that likely makes external API calls and performs synthesis, and with no annotations or output schema provided, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, how comprehensive the research is, what sources are used, or any limitations. For a tool with this level of potential complexity, the description should provide more context.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'topic' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't elaborate on topic format, length constraints, or examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('research', 'search', 'synthesize') and identifies the resource ('topic'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (configure, get_status) by focusing on research rather than configuration or status retrieval. However, it doesn't specify what distinguishes it from other potential research tools that might exist elsewhere.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or when other tools might be more appropriate. While the sibling tools (configure, get_status) are clearly different in function, there's no explicit comparison or usage context provided.

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