Check research scope

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 clear. The description adds value by specifying fail-closed behavior for unknown, inactive, expired, or unmatched inputs, and the 'at' parameter's role in temporal checks is implied but not fully detailed.

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 17-word sentence that conveys purpose, behavior, and failure mode with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately useful.

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 output schema exists (not shown) and annotations cover safety/idempotency, the description completes the picture by explaining fail-closed semantics and temporal context. Minor gap: no mention of the response format (e.g., a boolean result vs. a structured explanation).

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. It explains scope_id, target, and method via the purpose statement. The 'at' parameter is hinted by 'currently allowed' but not explicitly mapped to the parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema's required fields and enum.

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 starts with 'Explain whether one target and research method are currently allowed by a registered local scope,' which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like research_register_scope (registration) or research_get_case_state (case state) by focusing on scoping checks.

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 phrase 'Explain whether... are currently allowed' indicates a conditional check, and the closing 'fails closed' implies default rejection on error. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., research_get_case_state for scope context).

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