research_analyze_safe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that trading fields are removed and a research assistance boundary is added, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it omits effects on inputs/outputs, whether the operation is read-only or mutating, permission requirements, error handling, or any rate limits.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise in length, but it sacrifices clarity and informativeness. It is under-specification rather than efficient communication; key operational details are missing, and the sentence does not front-load the most important user-facing behavior.

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, no annotations, 3 parameters with zero documentation, and a vague description, the tool is severely under-described. The agent cannot reliably determine the purpose, input semantics, return format, or safety profile from this description, making it inadequate for selection and 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% (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate by explaining what symbol, question, and market mean or how they are used. The description does not mention any parameters at all, leaving the agent without semantic guidance beyond raw names and types.

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 says to 'call controlled research interface, delete trading fields and append research assistance boundary,' which implies a research analysis operation with sanitization, but it does not clearly state what the tool actually does for the user (e.g., analyze a symbol/question). It is closer to a tautology of the tool name 'research_analyze_safe' and provides no concrete outcome, making it hard to distinguish from sibling analysis tools like hypothesis_get or cognition_radar_read.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states 'call controlled research interface' without explaining the appropriate context or comparing to sibling tools such as stock_snapshot_latest or framework_excerpt.

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