Design Research Collect

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world operation, and the description usefully confirms the file-writing behavior and output location while flagging the returned references as untrusted_content. That untrusted-content warning and the "study material only" scope note add real value beyond the annotations; permissions or failure behavior are not covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured Use-when and Returns blocks; every line carries information. It is dense but not padded, with no redundant restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value coverage in the description is supplementary rather than required. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and annotations that convey the safety profile, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke this correctly; only edge-case behavior (rate limits, failure handling) is absent.

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%, so all five parameters (terms, app_dir, max_apps, countries, screenshots_per_app) are already documented in the schema. The description only implies the category-driven search via "category-leader" and adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a concrete verb and resource — downloading category-leader App Store screenshots and icons — plus the destination path (design/research/apps/) and the artifact produced (references.json). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like design_research_brief_template and design_research_check.

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?

"Use when: first design step" gives explicit triggering context, and it names the two downstream steps with their tool names (design_research_brief_template, design_research_check), giving the agent a workflow position. It lacks an explicit when-not clause or an alternative tool to avoid, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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