research_check_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does so well: it discloses that failures are explicit, that the tool is purely read-only and will not mutate evidence or reports, and what the return content consists of (added/removed content, source dates, existing claim/report locations). Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens when the registered source has no dated evidence.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then preconditions, then exclusions. Sentences are dense but each carries distinct information; no filler or restatement of the 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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description still summarizes return content and explicitly disclaims side effects and link-following, which is the important part for a read tool. The remaining hole is parameter meaning, which is a real gap for a two-required-parameter tool but not disqualifying.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain 'task' and 'source_id' and it does not. 'One registered public release log' faintly implies source_id is a registered source identifier, but 'task' is never mentioned and neither parameter's format, valid values, or constraints are given.

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 chain (read a registered release log, compare latest saved date against newer entries) and names the resource precisely, which is distinguishable from the research_* siblings that save, review, or report. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions ('Requires official_release/release_notes/changelog and saved evidence with dated version entries') and a termination rule ('unchanged ends the check'). It also lists what it will not do (follow links, change evidence/reading status, revise reports), which effectively routes the agent elsewhere, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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