research_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Import... into a notebook', which implies a write operation, but does not describe side effects, idempotency, error states, or what happens to existing data. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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, focused sentence with 7 words, containing no redundant or irrelevant information. It is optimally concise for a simple import operation.

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 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., research must be started and poll completed), and the behavior of the 'sources' array. A more complete description would include these aspects for safe and 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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents two parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or context for any parameter, including the undocumented 'notebook_id'. It fails to compensate for the missing schema description or provide usage constraints (e.g., format of sources array).

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 uses a specific verb 'Import' with a clear resource 'discovered research sources' and destination 'into a notebook'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like research_start and research_poll, which handle different stages of the research workflow.

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 usage as part of a research workflow after polls, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid it, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives. The context from sibling tools helps, but the description alone lacks direct usage guidance.

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