research_web_status

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool auto-stores completed reports to Weaviate. However, this conflicts with the 'readOnlyHint' annotation (true), which suggests no state modification. The description also explains the dual return behavior (report or status). Without annotations, it would need more; with them, it adds some value but introduces a contradiction.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining the return type, and disclosing the side effect. It is efficiently front-loaded and contains no redundant or irrelevant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, polling behavior), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and a notable side effect. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. The description is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'interaction_id', and its schema already has a description ('Interaction ID returned by research_web'). The tool description does not add any further meaning beyond this. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description provides no extra semantic value.

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: 'Poll or retrieve a Deep Research task.' It specifies the verb ('poll or retrieve'), the resource ('Deep Research task'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'research_web' (which starts tasks) and 'research_web_cancel' (which cancels). It also mentions what it returns ('full report with sources' or status), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage after initiating a task with 'research_web' by requiring an 'interaction_id' returned by that tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention any prerequisites. The context is implied but not explicit.

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