export_research_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs research, produces a Markdown file, and writes it to a configurable output_file with a documented default. It does not warn about overwriting existing files or long-running research behavior, but the main side effect is clearly stated.

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 front-loads the purpose and output format, adds one compact paragraph of report contents, then lists parameters with defaults. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 no annotations and an otherwise bare schema, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly: required niche, optional parameters with defaults, output destination, and deliverable format. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary.

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 fully compensates: the Args block explains all four parameters, gives example values for niche and target_audience, documents the output_file default, and states the region_code default. This is far more than the bare schema provides.

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 first line gives a precise action and artifact: 'Generate a publication-ready Markdown research report for Notion or Obsidian.' It also summarizes the operational scope ('Runs comprehensive market research') and lists the report's contents, which distinguishes it from the individual research/analysis sibling tools.

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 implies this is the right choice when a consolidated, formatted report is desired ('Runs comprehensive market research and formats it...'), but it never states when not to use it or suggests a sibling alternative for lower-level data needs. The when-to-use signal is implied rather than explicit.

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