build_research_object

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

The description uses the verb 'build', which typically implies creating or modifying state, directly contradicting the readOnlyHint annotation. This contradiction is significant and could mislead an agent about the tool's side effects.

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 sentence that is concise and to the point, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. It conveys the core idea without extra fluff, though it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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's composite nature (building a research object from multiple resources), the description lacks essential details such as input/output structure, how it interacts with other tools, or what the resulting object looks like. It is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 has two parameters (topic and cutoff_date) with no descriptions, and the description itself provides no explanation of them. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the meaning and expected values of the parameters unclear.

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 states the tool builds a traceable cross-institution research object with claim/report counts and mixed directions, giving some specificity. However, it is vague about the exact output format and what 'mixed directions' implies, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 the sibling tools such as search_research_reports or verify_thesis. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is the appropriate choice.

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