research_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose output format (md-table or json), scope (all campaigns), and included fields. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention how the limit parameter affects the result, which is a meaningful behavioral gap.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then lists fields, then formats, then usage context. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to restate them. It provides purpose, scope, fields, formats, and a usage cue. However, the undocumented 'limit' parameter and the 'ALL' wording create a real ambiguity about whether the result is truly complete or truncated by the limit. This is a clear gap for a tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'fmt' by mentioning 'md-таблица или json', but it does not explain 'limit'. Worse, 'ВСЕХ' (ALL) may mislead the agent into thinking the output includes every campaign regardless of the default limit of 50. This is a significant gap and a potential contradiction with the limit parameter.

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 tool summarizes ALL campaigns, listing specific fields (id, topic, status, domains/target, updated time). The phrase 'Сырьё для «что мы уже охотили»' distinguishes it from research_report/research_digest as raw index data. This provides a specific resource and scope, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description gives clear intended usage: 'Сырьё для «что мы уже охотили»' tells the agent to use this when it needs an overview of previously researched campaigns. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to route the agent appropriately.

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