readiness_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only hints that the tool provides research findings, but it does not disclose whether the tool is static, how results are presented, or any limitations. This is a notable gap for a reference tool.

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 is extremely concise—two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the topic, and the second explains the rationale for inclusion. Every word 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?

With no parameters and an existing output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it gives only a high-level summary of content coverage and does not specify what research areas or statistics are included, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's full scope.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter details. It still communicates the general domain of content, which adds a bit of semantic context beyond the empty 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?

The description states the topic ('What the research actually supports about cognition and gaming performance') but lacks a direct verb like 'provides' or 'returns.' It is not a tautology, but it doesn't explicitly define the tool's action or output format, making it only somewhat clear.

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 second sentence ('Included because these numbers get misquoted constantly') implies the tool is for retrieving accurate, research-backed figures. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives among the sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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