Simulate Research Query

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool simulates a research operation with progress stages and may send an elicitation request, but does not explain side effects, return format, or what happens after the simulation. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence provides useful information about what the tool does and special behavior.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description should explain expected return values or outcomes. It mentions progress and potential elicitation but does not describe what the agent receives after invocation, leaving a gap in completeness for a task-based demo tool.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters (topic and ambiguous) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the conditional behavior when 'ambiguous' is true and client supports elicitation, which goes beyond the schema's note about triggering input_required status.

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 clearly states the tool simulates a deep research operation, which is distinct from sibling tools like 'echo' or 'get-sum'. It specifies the verb ('simulates') and resource ('research query'), and adds context about being a demonstration of MCP task-based operations.

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 vs alternatives. It only mentions conditional behavior for the 'ambiguous' parameter, but does not help the agent decide when to invoke this tool over others.

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