research_verify_novelty

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

No annotations, so description covers behavior: checks library and arXiv, uses LLM for overlap, returns verdicts. However, no mention of side effects, permissions, or cost implications.

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?

Description is structured with purpose, process, and args. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value. Could be more concise without the verbatim typo.

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?

With an output schema, return values are not required, but description mentions verdicts. It covers inputs, process, and output clearly. Lacks error handling or performance notes.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description's Args section fully explains both parameters: idea_id (from generate_ideas) and search_query (optional override). This adds critical meaning beyond 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Run' on resource 'novelty re-verification on a previously generated idea'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like research_search_papers and research_query_library by focusing on re-verification of existing ideas.

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?

Description states the tool is for ideas from generate_ideas, implying post-generation usage. It explains the verification process but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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