research_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that search is by 'literal' keyword (not semantic) and that results are paginated, which is useful context beyond annotations, but says nothing about ordering, result shape, or limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler that efficiently conveys both operating modes. It is compact, though the density means some clarity is traded away.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the entry modes but omits parameter semantics, return format, and the reason study_id/query/offset/limit are all required. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 20% (only study_id is documented), so the description must compensate. It does conceptually map evidence_id (by ID), query (keyword), and offset/limit (pagination), but adds no format, pattern, default, or range detail for the undocumented parameters.

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 states two concrete modes (fetch evidence by ID, or search registered evidence in a study by keyword with pagination), which is a specific verb+resource. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like research_find_nodes or research_add_evidence, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the two usage modes (ID lookup vs keyword search) but gives no when-to-use guidance against alternatives, no exclusions, and no note about how the two modes interact with the required parameters. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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