Research Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes well beyond by disclosing that report/report_markdown are omitted unless include_report=True, truncation semantics (report_char_count/report_truncated), pagination via source_limit/source_offset, how termination_reason splits 'failed', and that task_id is a deprecated alias removed in v0.9.0.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with purpose and the poll-to-import workflow before parameter minutiae. Each sentence carries substantive information, though the backtick-heavy formatting makes it longer than strictly 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still explains the key return fields and their conditional presence, and every parameter is accounted for. For a 7-parameter polling tool with deprecated-alias and pagination quirks, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so: it documents notebook (name or ID), poll_task_id (pins an in-flight task, ambiguity behavior), task_id (deprecated alias), include_report, report_max_chars (truncation cap), and source_limit/source_offset (paging). Nearly all seven parameters gain meaning absent from the raw schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Check a notebook's research status') and immediately enumerates the returned status values (no_research|in_progress|completed|failed|not_found), which distinguishes it from siblings like research_start, research_cancel, and research_import. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: poll until 'completed', then pass 'poll_task_id' to research_import. It also explains the disambiguation rule ('omit for a single task (ambiguous with two+)') and that an unmatched pin yields not_found, leaving nothing to inference for a polling tool.

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