research_session_understand_query

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does reveal a side effect ('uloží' / saves), but it does not specify whether data is overwritten, whether a session must already exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens to incomplete input. The phrase 'očistené údaje dotazu' is vague about what transformation actually occurs.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the main action 'Rozloží a uloží' before the object. It is concise and easy to scan, though the brevity contributes to under-specification.

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 stage-like tool among several research_session siblings, with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, a one-line purpose is not enough. The agent lacks when-to-use, parameter meaning, and behavioral consequences. The presence of an output schema helps return-value understanding, but the description still fails to complete the invocation context.

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% while there are 4 parameters, so the description needs to compensate. It only refers generally to 'dotazu' (query) and 'výskumnú reláciu' (research session), which hints at query-related parameters and session_id but says nothing about run_id, english_query, original_query, or their roles.

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 Slovak description 'Rozloží a uloží očistené údaje dotazu pre výskumnú reláciu' clearly states a verb and resource: it decomposes and saves cleaned query data for a research session. This is more than a tautology and is distinguishable by name from siblings, but it does not explain what 'understand' concretely produces or how this stage differs from sibling queries.

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?

No guidance is given about when this tool should be used instead of siblings such as research_session_start or research_session_user_answer. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of how this fits into the research-session pipeline.

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