research_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails entirely. 'Research slips for the current board' discloses no side effects, no scoping behavior, no notion of what 'current' means, and no sense of what the returned data represents. The agent is left blind about what happens when it calls this tool.

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 short, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. A single ambiguous sentence with no useful front-loaded information does not earn conciseness credit — every word is wasted because the sentence communicates almost nothing actionable.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, two undocumented parameters, and a large sibling set creating ambiguity, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what 'slips' and 'current board' mean, what the parameters do, what the output looks like, or how this differs from research_board_tapes.

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 neither the schema nor the description explains the two parameters. The description never mentions 'sport' or 'recent', leaving the agent to guess what values are valid and what effect they have on the results.

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 names a verb ('Research') and a resource ('slips for the current board'), but 'research' is a vague verb that does not indicate the actual operation, and 'slips' plus 'board' are undefined domain jargon. It does nothing to differentiate this tool from closely named siblings like research_board_tapes or research_player, so an agent cannot tell what this tool uniquely does.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the roughly 50 siblings. No exclusions, no alternatives, no context — with research_board_tapes and research_player in the same family, the agent has no basis for choosing this tool over the others.

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