research_status

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

Annotations declare only readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior: the status enum, termination_reason sub-classification of failed, the not_found result for an unmatched pin, report omission/truncation rules, and pagination of sources. Well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then organized into short paragraphs covering returns, report fields, pagination, and pinning. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the back-reference overload of inline ``code`` terms makes it slightly heavier than needed.

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, yet the description still explains the notable return fields and workflow linkage, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or interpret the result. Complete for a 7-param status tool with no schema descriptions.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: poll_task_id pinning semantics and not_found outcome, source_limit/source_offset paging, include_report and report_max_chars behavior, notebook accepting name or ID, and task_id flagged as a deprecated alias with a removal version. Nearly every one of the 7 params gains meaning absent from the schema.

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+resource ('Check a notebook's research status') and immediately names the accepted identifier ('a notebook name or ID'). The polling workflow and the handoff to research_import distinguish it from siblings research_start, research_cancel, and research_import without ambiguity.

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?

Gives an explicit operating loop ('Poll until completed, then pass poll_task_id to research_import') plus the condition selecting the pinned variant ('poll_task_id ... pins one of several in-flight tasks; omit for a single task'). This is concrete when/when-not guidance tied to a named alternative.

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