research_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what is returned (status, counter, ranked top sources), the ranking heuristic (docs/code first), and implicitly that it is not exhaustive. It does not explicitly declare read-only-ness, but the status/progress framing makes that clear.

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?

Three compact sections: result content, when to use, when not to use. No filler; the core function is front-loaded and each clause earns its place.

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 is simple (2 params, output schema present), and the description covers what it returns, when to use it, and which siblings to choose instead. Slight incompleteness around the exact role of limit and the definition of 'goal' keeps it from a 5.

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%, but the description partially compensates: 'campaign progress' grounds camp_id, and 'top sources' gives limit a meaning (top-N). It does not explicitly state that limit controls the size of the top list or define the counter, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 states a specific function: campaign research progress with status, a site-vs-goal counter, and top sources ranked by quality (docs/code first). It also names what it is not via the NOT-WHEN section, distinguishing it from research_report and research_digest.

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?

Provides explicit WHEN guidance ('quick status check') and explicit NOT-WHEN exclusions with named alternatives: full source list → research_report; texts/summaries → research_digest. This fully routes an agent toward the correct tool.

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