get_research_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve research document metadata' implies a read-only metadata lookup, but it does not disclose what metadata fields are returned, behavior for missing documents, or error conditions. It is minimally transparent.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It states the action and object directly and is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

While the tool is simple, the absence of annotations, output schema, and usage guidance makes the description incomplete. An agent does not know what metadata is returned, how to distinguish this from get_research_content, or how to handle potential failures.

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 for explaining the parameter. It does not mention document_id format, type, meaning, or any constraints. The parameter name and title are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no clarification.

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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Retrieve', with a clear resource, 'research document metadata.' It distinguishes itself from sibling get_research_content by specifying metadata rather than content, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_research_content, search_research_content, or get_experiment. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallback tools, or exclusion conditions.

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