Create research report

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

The description discloses that it waits up to 300s, may time out, and returns a jobId in error for checking status. It also mentions the action is saving a report (creating a resource), but lacks explicit statements about mutation or side effects. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does a good job by noting the wait and jobId behavior.

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 paragraph but richly detailed, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is somewhat long, but every sentence adds value, covering usage, parameters, return values, and follow-up actions. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullets) but still efficient and well-organized.

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?

The tool has one param, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must cover return values and error behavior. It does: returns analysisId, title, symbol, overallScore, overallView, and truncated summary, plus timeout behavior and jobId. It also guides next steps (create_strategy). Missing some details like exact error format but sufficient for a single-param tool.

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 100% (single prompt parameter fully described with min/max and example). The description adds semantics by explaining what the prompt should contain ('what to research and from which angle') and gives an example, plus guidance to resolve tickers with search_symbols. This adds value beyond the schema's basic min/max.

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 'Generate a saved AI research report' with specific elements (thesis, risks, catalysts, scored overall view) and for 'a company or asset from a natural-language prompt'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'saved' (vs get_research/list_research) and as a first step before building a strategy, referencing create_strategy.

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?

Explicit when to use: 'when the user wants fundamental or thematic research, or as the first step before building a research-grounded strategy' and mentions resolving tickers with search_symbols first. Also provides alternative: pass analysisId to create_strategy, and mentions get_job_status for timeout. Clear exclusions and alternatives.

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