toolbox_research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, non-idempotent and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results come from an external Tavily call and include docs, GitHub links and examples, but says nothing about latency, cost, or why it is not idempotent.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the mechanism and value are stated up front. Minor looseness from the line break and the vague verb 'enrich'.

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?

Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a one-parameter tool the description leaves open whether 'name' is a registry entry, a package, or a URL, and when to prefer a sibling — a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 0% on a single required 'name' string with no description. The phrase 'Enrich tool information' hints the parameter is a tool name, but the description never states that explicitly or gives format expectations, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 action with mechanism: enrich tool information using real-time web search via Tavily, combining indexed data with live results. That is clearly distinguishable from toolbox_describe or toolbox_inventory in spirit, but the description never names those siblings, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 only implied by 'for up-to-date documentation' — an agent can infer this is the fallback when indexed data is stale, but no explicit trigger, exclusion, or named alternative (e.g. toolbox_search) is given.

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