get_research_report

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond 'Retrieve'. It does not say whether a call returns full report text or just metadata, how large the payload is (a serious risk given 15 studies), whether results are cached or static, or what permissions are needed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the remainder is a single 15-item parenthetical catalog embedded mid-sentence, making it dense and hard to scan. The list has some value for slug selection but is far too long for a description field and would be better placed in the schema or a resource.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description should describe what comes back and roughly how much. Instead it spends its length on a catalog of study titles and leaves the return shape, content size, and structure entirely unexplained.

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 100% and the schema already explains the slug and the omit-to-list-all behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description does add marginal value by naming all 15 study titles, which helps an agent map intent to a slug, but it gives no slug formatting rules beyond the schema's two examples.

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 a specific verb and resource: retrieve first-party empirical poker industry research reports and dataset benchmarks. The enumerated catalog of all 15 studies makes the scope unambiguous, but it never contrasts this with the sibling tools (calculators, lookups, venue searches), so the agent must infer the distinction from domain alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; nothing says whether this is for sourcing statistics, citing benchmarks, or grounding strategy answers. The only routing hint ('omit to list all 15') is a parameter behavior, not usage guidance, and no alternative tool is named.

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