Research a Robinhood Chain project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds some useful behavior ("one bounded answer," per-mode limits like "no winner" and "1–30 days"), but "bounded" is never quantified, and the FACT/DERIVED/UNKNOWN labeling largely restates what the output schema already conveys. Moderate added value with annotations doing much of the work.

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 user-facing questions, then a dense capability-to-parameter map with no filler sentences. The telegraphic semicolon style is compact but at the edge of readability, keeping it just under a 5.

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 10-parameter, six-capability tool the description covers capability routing adequately and an output schema exists for return values. But four parameters are undocumented and the "one bounded answer" constraint is unquantified, so an agent lacks enough to invoke some modes confidently.

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%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does explain q (name/$TICKER/address/slug), days, projects, address, and project, plus ties capability to params. It leaves limit, types, detail, and the odd building:"only" const entirely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 a specific domain (Robinhood Chain projects), frames the questions it answers, and enumerates its six capability modes, so the agent knows it is a synthesized, cited answer tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like find_projects, get_changes, or get_evidence, so it stops 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 gives per-capability routing guidance (q for research_project/builder_status, days with a 1–30 bound for what_changed, 2–4 for compare_builders) and an explicit exclusion ("Not price advice or a safety verdict"). However, it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings that appear to cover the same ground, such as get_changes or find_projects.

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