Simulate Research Query

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

Annotations provide limited behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.). The description adds value by explaining that the tool demonstrates MCP task-based operations with progress through multiple stages and may send an elicitation request. This goes beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a conditional behavior note. Every sentence is necessary.

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 description mentions progress through multiple stages but does not specify the output format or return value. For a simulation tool without an output schema, this leaves uncertainty about what the agent can expect (streaming? final result?). Adequate but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds only a minor clarification for the 'ambiguous' parameter (elicitation behavior), which mostly repeats the schema's description. No additional semantics for 'topic'.

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 simulates a deep research operation with gathering, analysis, and synthesis. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are simple utilities (echo, get-env, etc.) by emphasizing its demonstration of MCP task-based operations with progress stages.

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 provides usage context for the 'ambiguous' parameter and mentions client elicitation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It implicitly serves as a demonstration tool.

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