research_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the useful fact that results are a catalog/overview rather than full evidence, but says nothing about pagination, size limits or permissions. Adequate but not rich.

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 semicolon-joined sentence, front-loaded with what is retrieved and ending with the sibling pointer. Dense but efficient, with no filler; the long enumeration makes it slightly harder to scan than an ideal definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by listing the five content categories while deferring bulk evidence to research_evidence. Combined with full parameter coverage and read-only annotations, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% for the single study_id parameter, and the schema itself explains that it is the research ID returned by research_create. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb (查看/view) and enumerates the resources returned: research questions, judgments, verification records, analysis scope and evidence catalog. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling research_evidence, so an agent can distinguish the two. It falls just short of 5 because the enumeration is a laundry list rather than a synthesized statement of the tool's role (study overview).

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 gives clear routing guidance: use this tool for the overview, and use research_evidence when full evidence is needed. That is an explicit alternative with a selecting condition. It does not, however, state an explicit when-not-to-use case or any prerequisites beyond the implied one.

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