research_insight

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the output format ('rows of {dim, breakdown, value}') and the access requirement ('Requires Pro or active trial days'), plus a helpful analogy ('same engine as the website's Custom Chart'). It does not mention rate limits or data caveats, but provides solid context for a read-only analytics tool.

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?

Four well-organized sentences cover purpose, use cases, output, and a prerequisite. The description is front-loaded with the core function and uses compact, meaningful examples. No filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, what the result looks like, and the Pro requirement. The schema handles parameter details, and the description fills the remaining conceptual gaps.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions and enums, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a few clarifying examples and output shape but does not substantially expand on the schema's parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific action ('Build aggregate pivot statistics') and a clear resource ('arXivSub corpora'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling search tools. It also provides concrete example queries ('top institutions in RL', 'papers per month by keyword') that confirm its analytical purpose.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: for trends, rankings, breakdowns, and comparisons, with illustrative examples. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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