research_profile_status

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

The description clearly states 'without executing any route', disclosing the key behavioral trait of being read-only and non-destructive. Since no annotations are provided, this adds essential transparency. It could further detail what 'research profile' entails or authentication requirements, but the current disclosure is solid.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose and key behavioral trait. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description covers the core action and safety profile adequately. A small addition about when to use this check (e.g., before ingestion or semantic setup) would make it fully complete, but current level is sufficient.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivially), the baseline is 4 according to the rubric. The description does not add parameter information (there are none), which is acceptable given no parameters exist.

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 'Inspect' and identifies the resource as 'declared research profile', making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like research_index_status or research_semantic_models, which could also be inspection-oriented. A more explicit contrast would elevate it to a 5.

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 for non-destructive inspection, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For a zero-parameter tool, the usage context is straightforward, but the lack of explicit guidance keeps it at a 3.

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