stt_research_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is a PDF dossier under ./reports/ with specific content (product list, dossiers). Missing details on side effects, authentication, filesystem behavior, or error handling. Adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and output. No wasted words. The usage recommendation is included concisely.

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?

Given no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the main output structure but omits details on parameter behavior, return value, and error conditions. It is adequate for a straightforward research tool but could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 67% description coverage. The tool description adds context for 'keyword' and 'deepCount' (deep dossiers) but does not mention the 'recommendation' parameter. It adds some meaning but does not fully compensate 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: research a niche/keyword and generate a detailed PDF dossier. It distinguishes from sibling tools by saying 'Use this by default whenever researching a product,' implying it is the comprehensive research tool.

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 provides an explicit when-to-use guideline: 'Use this by default whenever researching a product.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide specific alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear.

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