search_research_reports

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-semantic context (exact evidence, provenance, evidence_set_id), but it does not explain ranking behavior, how cutoff_date affects results, or any limitations beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded and the return value is stated immediately. It is concise without sacrificing the core purpose.

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 an output schema and read-only annotations present, the description does not need to detail return values or safety. However, given the sibling tools and the three parameters with no schema descriptions, the description is missing enough guidance about when to choose this tool and how to use parameters like cutoff_date to be fully complete.

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%, and the tool description does not explain query, top_k, or cutoff_date semantics. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and leaves query construction and cutoff behavior entirely implicit.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search original research reports.' The phrase 'original research reports' distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_news and list_theses, and the return note (exact evidence, provenance, evidence_set_id) sharpens its purpose.

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 implies the tool should be used when original research evidence is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_news or list_theses. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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