get_saved_research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description discloses what the read actually yields (frozen settings, linkage, expiry) and, more importantly, an operational limit: expired reports are neither run nor restored. That is real context a schema alone would not convey.

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?

One dense sentence with the resource and the returned surface front-loaded, then the exclusion clause. No filler; it is only mildly compressed term-heavy, which costs some readability rather than length.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and what is refused. The only meaningful gap is explaining the required identifier, which neither schema nor description defines.

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 carries the burden for idea_id, and it says nothing about the parameter's format, ownership requirement or what happens with a non-existent id. The word 'owned' weakly implies a caller-permission constraint, but the single exposed input is otherwise undocumented.

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 (Read) and resource (an owned Angles idea) and enumerates the payload it returns: frozen rule/test settings, source-filter linkage, website link, report expiry. It is distinguishable from list_saved_research by the singular 'an owned ... idea', though the term 'Angles idea' is in-house jargon an agent may not resolve against the sibling 'research'/'filter' vocabulary.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read' and the fact that it takes an idea_id. The one explicit scoping statement, 'Does not run or restore expired reports', is a useful when-not boundary, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over get_filter_research, list_saved_research or get_gamecenter_packet.

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