run_research_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it does not disclose that the pipeline generates and executes code (a significant side-effect/safety consideration), nor anything about runtime, cost, or whether artifacts are persisted. The stage list describes the internal flow, which is useful, but the risky behaviors of an execute-code pipeline are left unstated.

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 and stage summary, followed by a compact Args block. The backend vendor mention ('sercantas Academic-Research-MCP-Suite') is of limited value to an agent selecting the tool, but it occupies little space.

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 not be explained, and both parameters are covered. However, for a tool that refines questions, generates code, and executes it, the absence of any note on duration, failure modes, or side effects leaves the behavioral picture incomplete.

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 description must compensate, and it does: 'question' is characterized as vague or broad (implying the refinement stage will handle it), and 'output_style' is given its allowed values (APA, ASA, generic) which the schema does not enumerate. Minor gap: 'generic' is unexplained and no format example is 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 and resource ('Run the full academic research pipeline') and enumerates the four stages, so the agent knows this is an end-to-end multi-step operation rather than a single lookup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the read-only siblings (search_papers, get_paper), but the 'full pipeline' framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the argument hint 'A vague or broad research question' suggests this tool is for exploratory questions rather than targeted lookups, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of search_papers when...' statement or statement of prerequisites. No exclusions are given.

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