research_check_reviewer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the two traits that matter most: no report data leaves the machine and no paid model calls are made. What it does not disclose is whether it mutates anything or what a failed check looks like, though the output schema covers the return value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that communicates action, resource, and the two most decision-relevant constraints. No filler.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description needs only to convey purpose and behavioral constraints, which it does. It is slightly thin on what 'trusted reviewer configuration' actually consists of, but that is a minor gap for a zero-arg, schema-backed tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('trusted reviewer configuration'), plus a scope qualifier ('locally'). It is distinguishable from the sibling research_review because it explicitly frames itself as a local, no-cost verification rather than an actual review. It stops short of naming a sibling, so 4 rather than 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 phrase 'without sending report data or paid model calls' implies this is the cheap pre-flight check to run before invoking the paid review path, but the guidance is implied rather than stated. No alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not condition is given.

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