research_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Return info') but does not explicitly state that it causes no side effects, nor does it mention authentication requirements, response structure, or any other behavioral traits. The word 'info' weakly suggests non-mutating behavior, but this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Return') and directly states the core output. It contains no filler or redundant information. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient: it names the two key outputs ('schema' and 'repository info'). However, 'repository info' is slightly vague, and the lack of any usage guidance leaves some contextual gap, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description need not elaborate on parameters because none exist; the empty schema fully documents parameter expectations. The description simply affirms there is nothing to configure.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('research dataset schema and repository info'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like research_query or dataset_stats, but the focus on schema and repository info implies a metacognitive/informational role rather than data retrieval or analysis.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. The sibling tool list implies possible overlap with dataset_stats and research_stats, but the description does not address these distinctions.

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