get_research_topic_tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'does not analyse data' adds modest value by clarifying the output is documentation text rather than computed results, but it says nothing about behavior on an unknown or invalid topic_id.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no redundant phrasing. It is efficient, bordering on under-specified rather than verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and this is a simple read-only single-parameter tool. Still missing are where topic_id comes from and failure behavior, which matter for correct invocation from a cold start.

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% and the single parameter topic_id receives no explanation in the description — no format, no provenance, no note about what happens if it doesn't exist. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, but the definition does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Read') and resource ('documented plot/method topic and citations'), which is far more specific than the tool name alone. It also scopes the tool negatively ('does not analyse data'), though it never names the sibling (list_research_topics_tool) that supplies topic IDs.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch one documented topic by ID. The clause 'does not analyse data' functions as a when-not hint, steering analysis requests elsewhere, but no explicit alternative tool or prerequisite is given (e.g., get topic_id from list_research_topics_tool first).

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