research_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the return payload (citation_safe_count, warnings, recommended_next_steps), signaling quality/citation concerns, but omits side effects like where generated_files are written, whether output_dir is required for file generation, and any rate limits or permissions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return contract. Efficiently sized, though the field enumeration is dense prose that would read better as a list.

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 5-parameter composite tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the parameter contract and side effects largely unexplained. Enumerating return fields helps but does not cover how to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% and none of the 5 parameters (filters, sources, output_dir, fetch_count) are explained in the description. 'query' appears only implicitly inside the return-field list. With low coverage the description should compensate but does not.

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?

States a specific compound purpose: 'Search sources, fetch documents, and build a research bundle.' The verb+resource is clear, but the compound nature makes it hard to distinguish from siblings like search_local_corpus or search_decisions when only the search portion is needed; no sibling is named.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the 10 sibling search/get tools. The agent must infer whether this is the right entry point versus narrower search tools.

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