research_board_tapes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it does not mention side effects, access requirements, read-only nature, output format, or what a 'tape' entails. The only behavioral hint is the verb 'research', which weakly implies a read operation.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loads the main purpose without filler. It loses a point only because the jargon-laden 'quote tapes' and parenthetical 'Hobby+' are not expanded, so compactness comes at the cost of clarity.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is too thin: it omits parameter behavior, return expectations, and selection criteria. Some context is present (current board, Hobby+), but it is not enough for correct invocation.

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% and the description adds nothing about the optional 'sport' parameter. An agent can only infer from the property name and default 'cs2'; the description fails to explain whether sport is required or how it affects the tape 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 specific action and resource ('Research quote tapes') and scopes it to 'the current board (Hobby+)', so it is not a pure tautology. However, 'quote tapes' is unexplained jargon and the description does not differentiate this from siblings like research_board or get_history_tape, leaving the agent to guess what the tool actually returns.

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?

The description only implies that this tool is for researching quote tapes on the current board. It gives no explicit conditions for when to choose it over research_board, research_player, or get_history_tape, nor any exclusions.

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