research_get

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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context: the enumerated status lifecycle (queued, running, completed, failed), the fact that result/error appear only in terminal states, that the call is free, and that visibility is scoped to the caller's own account. That goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the returned fields. No filler and no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming every returned field (status, input, result, error) and when each is populated. No pagination or auth prerequisites are left ambiguous, so nothing needed to call and interpret it is missing.

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 100% and the parameter's description already states it is the research_id from research_submit, so the description largely repeats that. It adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read a research job') and anchors it to the sibling that produces the id ('research_id research_submit returned'). An agent can distinguish this from research_submit and the other getters without opening the schema.

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?

Implies the usage context clearly — call this after research_submit to poll a job — and names that sibling as the source of the id. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming alternatives for listing multiple jobs, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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