research_status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description richly discloses behavior: default omission of report/source markdown, truncation behavior, source pagination, ambiguous task pinning, and the deprecated task_id alias. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 organized into short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then systematically covers return values, optional parameters, and edge cases. No sentence is wasted; it is appropriately sized for 7 parameters.

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?

The description covers all relevant use cases: polling, report inclusion/truncation, pagination, ambiguous task pinning, and deprecation. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to re-explain return structures, but it still adds useful field-level context (e.g., report_char_count, report_truncated).

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully. It explains notebook (name or ID), poll_task_id (pinning), include_report, report_max_chars (truncation), source_limit/source_offset (pagination), and task_id (deprecated alias). Every parameter is given meaningful semantics.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Check a notebook's research status.' It specifies what the tool does (returns status) and differentiates it from sibling tools like research_start, research_cancel, and research_import by focusing on the status-checking and polling workflow.

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?

It explicitly states the polling workflow: 'Poll until completed, then pass poll_task_id to research_import.' It also gives parameter-level usage guidance (e.g., 'omit it for a single task (ambiguous with two+ running)') and distinguishes from the next step, research_import.

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