Register research scope

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It adds one key behavioral trait: the record does not create legal permission. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like idempotency, effects on existing records, or required permissions. The description adds some value beyond annotations but is not comprehensive.

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 consists of two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and then immediately adds a clarifying caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 6 required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and an output schema (not shown), the description is too brief. It does not explain what the output is, what happens on success/failure, or any prerequisites (e.g., must a case exist?). The sibling list provides context, but the description itself is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 maps 'external authorization reference' to authorization_ref, 'allowed assets' to assets, 'methods', and 'validity window' to valid_from/valid_until. However, 'program' is not explained, and no details about formats or constraints are provided. The description adds partial semantics but leaves gaps.

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 registers a local authorization record with specific components (external reference, assets, methods, validity window). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not create legal permission, which separates it from other research tools like research_check_scope or research_create_case.

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 use for creating a local authorization record but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, when not to use it, or prerequisites. The caveat about legal permission provides some context, but no sibling differentiation or exclusion criteria are given.

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