research_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the allowed stage values (collect/analyze/draft/revise) and that advancement is gated on existing prerequisite records, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not address permissions, error behavior, or what happens on an illegal stage transition, so gaps remain for a tool that can mutate state.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the stage semantics, then the boundary against siblings. Nearly zero waste, though 'Read progress and stage methods' is slightly awkward phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the stage-mutation rules are covered. However, the undefined 'prerequisite records' and the undocumented task/language parameters leave an agent with avoidable uncertainty when composing a call.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema gives no help for task, stage, or language. The description partially compensates by enumerating the valid stage values and the condition for using stage, but task and language are left entirely undefined in both places.

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 verb+resource pairing (read progress and stage methods) and explicitly carves out review/final completion as belonging to sibling tools. The phrase 'stage methods' is somewhat opaque, but an agent can tell this apart from research_review and research_finish without opening a schema.

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 a clear usage condition (advance stage only after prerequisite records exist) and names the alternatives for other operations ('Review and final completion use their dedicated tools'). It stops short of naming which record types count as prerequisites or when a read-only call is preferred over advancing.

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