import_research_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions the precondition and optional effects (folder/campaign assignment), but does not mention the confirmation requirement, idempotency behavior, or potential for duplicates. This provides some transparency but leaves important behavioral aspects unstated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by a critical precondition. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to call it, and optional behaviors. However, it omits mention of the 'confirmed' parameter and idempotency, which are important for safe usage, so it is not fully 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description references folder_name and campaign_id via 'auto-assign to a folder and/or enroll in a campaign', but this only restates what the schema already explains. No additional semantic value is added.

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 action ('Import completed research results into the CRM as contacts') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_contact (manual single contact) and run_research (produces the results), making its role unique.

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?

It explicitly states a precondition: 'Only call after check_research_status returns complete', which provides clear when-to-use guidance. It also hints at optional features (auto-assign folder/enroll campaign) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_contact for individual import, so a 4 is appropriate.

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