run_research_intelligence

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

With no annotations, the description must bear full weight. It states the tool returns 'running status for review', implying an asynchronous operation, but does not clarify side effects, permissions, or whether results are stored. No behavioral traits beyond the literal action are disclosed.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, making it concise. However, it is so terse that it omits necessary details, crossing from conciseness into 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, parameter usage, or process details, making it inadequate for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has three parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description provides no additional meaning. The agent receives no help understanding 'topic', 'preset', or 'max_results', despite schema coverage being 0%. This is a critical 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'run' and the resource 'research intelligence', indicating it initiates a process. It is differentiated from the sibling tool 'get_finding_evidence' by focusing on running rather than retrieving. However, it does not specify what 'research intelligence' entails, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does without any usage recommendations.

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