get_research_methodology

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

With no annotations, the description clarifies it returns markdown content (read operation). However, it does not disclose format details, size, or potential rate limits. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 that conveys the essential information without waste. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings like plan_article_research, nor does it elaborate on the return format. Slightly more context would improve completeness.

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 are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter information; it adds meaning by stating the content of the output. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 returns 'Full methodology markdown' and specifies contents like depth levels, source tiers, checklist. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article or plan_article_research.

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 for retrieving methodology but does not explicitly state when to use or when not, nor does it mention alternatives. Sibling tools exist but no guidance is provided.

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