research_report

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 discloses output format, output content, and a state prerequisite (campaign must be done). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or failure modes, but a report-generating tool with this level of output detail is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded with the key purpose, and uses a clear when/not-when structure. Every sentence adds useful information and nothing is redundant.

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 simple two-parameter schema, existing output schema, and clear sibling routing, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers purpose, output shape, formatting, and the condition for use.

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 does so by mentioning the two output formats (md table or JSON), which maps to the 'fmt' parameter, and by tying the operation to a completed campaign, which clarifies 'camp_id'. It does not explicitly document valid fmt values or how to obtain camp_id, but the parameter set is small and inferable.

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 produces a campaign report: a list of sources with title, URL, domain, and class, formatted as an md table or JSON. It also distinguishes itself from nearby siblings by naming citation_pack, research_index, and research_status.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit with a 'КОГДА' (when) and 'НЕ КОГДА' (not when) section. It states to use this tool when the campaign is done, and provides concrete alternative tools for verified citations, all-campaign summaries, and running campaigns.

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