assess_research_quality

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it fails entirely. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies data, or any side effects. The agent gets no insight into what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 vague sentence, which is insufficient. Conciseness should pack meaning into few words, but here the brevity is due to lack of information, not efficiency.

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?

Without output schema, annotations, or parameter explanations, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how to interpret 'scores', or what constraints apply.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. However, it does not mention 'recording_ids' or 'criteria' at all, leaving their purpose and constraints completely undocumented.

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 'Score research quality' is a tautology that simply restates the tool's name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what 'scoring' entails or how this tool differs from siblings like 'detect_research_bias' or 'validate_insight_batch'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid using it.

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