Prepare research playbook input

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the return shape (instruction, packet, packet_hash), the fact that no model is called, and that work happens within a library read budget. The budget is referenced but never quantified, which keeps this below a 5.

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?

Four sentences, all substantive, with purpose and alternatives front-loaded before return details. The alternatives sentence is long and packs four tool names into one clause, which costs some scannability but not correctness.

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 output schema, the description correctly covers return values (instruction, packet, packet_hash) and the client-side analysis contract. The nested arguments object is fully documented in the schema. The only unresolved gap is what the 'library read budget' actually constrains.

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 100% and the schema itself already spells out per-playbook selector rules, ID caps and the since format. The description adds only the meta-rule that argument selectors depend on the selected playbook, which is useful framing but not new detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: prepare cited local evidence and instructions for a client-written research report. It also enumerates the concrete use cases (creator comparisons, transcript analysis, comment mining, repurposing) and names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can place it 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?

Explicit routing guidance: use analyze_self_channel for computed own-channel performance, search_library for ad hoc retrieval, get_library_brief_input for a dated operational brief. The conditions that select each alternative are stated, not inferred.

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