research_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description is solely responsible for disclosing behavior. It states that a retrieval runs and returns a result, but it doesn't mention permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what 'correction' entails. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, which is brief and front-loaded with a verb. However, it uses unexplained jargon ('multi-head stage retrieval') and lacks substance, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is short but not informative.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should do heavy lifting. It fails to clarify what the parameters mean, what the returned 'action/correction' looks like, or how the tool fits into a workflow. Major gaps remain in even basic understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It provides no information about 'stage', 'decision', or 'limit' — not even a hint of how they influence the tool's behavior. The agent cannot infer what values to provide or why.

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 identifies a verb ('Run') and a resource ('multi-head stage retrieval'), and mentions a return value ('next action/correction'). However, 'multi-head stage retrieval' is jargon that isn't explained, and it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like research_controller or research_mentor. The overall purpose is only loosely conveyed.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'mandatory' hints at a required step but doesn't clarify the context or exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or decision criteria.

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