Get research report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully warns that narrative sections are truncated and that full layouts and raw data are never dumped, which are key behavioral traits. It doesn't explicitly state read-only status, but as a fetch operation this is largely implied; the added truncation warning adds significant value.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then usage context, then parameter and return information. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no waste or redundancy.

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 is simple (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema). The description adequately explains return structure (title, symbol, score, view, truncated narrative sections) and key limitations, providing all essential context for an agent to use it correctly. No output schema means the description appropriately covers return values.

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?

The schema already documents analysisId as a UUID with the same origin hint (from create_research or list_research), providing 100% coverage. The description restates this information without adding new semantics, so the baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('saved research report by analysisId'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_research (which lists reports) and get_strategy (which gets strategies). It explicitly identifies the key parameter and the operation's scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to re-read research created earlier' and 'before building or editing strategies'. It also names the alternative tool (list_research) for finding IDs, providing clear context and an alternative without ambiguity.

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