research_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: for a running job, it returns how long it has been running instead of an error, and advises to call again later. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 primary purpose and a conditional note. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers both the completed and running states. It doesn't detail output format or error cases, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for status.

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 schema already fully describes the sole parameter research_id as 'returned by research_submit,' and the description merely repeats 'research_id' without adding new semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Fetch the result of a completed Brave Answers research job' with a specific resource (research result) and scope (completed job). It also differentiates from siblings by explaining the behavior when the job is still running, which is distinct from a status or submission 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 clear usage timing: call to fetch results of a completed job, and if the job is still running, 'call again later.' It implicitly tells the agent to retry later rather than switching to another tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools like research_status.

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