analyze_research_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'analyze' and mentions 'explainable' output, but it does not disclose what processing occurs, whether external services are called, what happens with the input text, or how the 'explainable' aspect is delivered.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core action and output, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with many nested parameters.

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 seven nested parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is insufficient. The description does not explain return values, parameter relationships, required source_type behavior, or what 'explainable' means in practice, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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%, and the description only vaguely maps to source_text via 'attachment-derived text'. None of the other parameters (max_queries, max_keywords, source_type, section_hint, assignment_requirements) are explained or even mentioned, so the agent receives almost no semantic help for them.

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 a specific action ('Analyze') on a specific resource ('attachment-derived text') with a defined output ('explainable scholarly search terms'). It does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool analyze_attachment_resource, but the focus on text-to-search-terms gives enough differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like analyze_attachment_resource, discover_references, or validate_reference. No context is provided about which input types or workflows this tool is intended for beyond the vague 'attachment-derived text'.

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