research

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency about the scale of operation (25-35 web searches), which is useful context beyond the annotations regarding resource usage and depth.

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 that front-loads the key action and scope. However, the phrase 'Therapeutic Buyer Engine' is jargon and may confuse some agents, slightly reducing clarity.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent receives after execution (e.g., report, summary). It only mentions performing searches, leaving the output format ambiguous, which is a significant gap.

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 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines 'market_name' as 'The market/pipeline slug'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it performs deep buyer persona research with 25-35 web searches, giving a specific verb and resource. However, the tool name 'research' is generic, and the description does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like market_intel or scout, relying on 'Therapeutic Buyer Engine' which may be ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for buyer persona research, but does not specify scenarios where it should be preferred or avoided, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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