research_with_ollama

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: it fetches external market data, depends on a local Ollama service, returns three artifacts, and does not itself write to Notion ('ready to write'). It could also mention failure behavior when Ollama is unavailable, but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then gives a numbered return breakdown and a clear prerequisite. It is slightly redundant ('research' repeated and the Research Button phrase), but each section earns its place for a multi-artifact 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the three return components and telling the agent where to pass each one ('pass to API-patch-block-children', 'pass to API-post-page or API-patch-page'). It would be more complete with an explicit mention of what happens if Ollama is not reachable, but the actionable downstream flow is present.

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 coverage is 100%, with both `market_id` and `iteration` described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action: 'One-click AI research: fetches market data, calls local Ollama LLM for analysis, and returns both the research results AND formatted Notion blocks ready to write.' It clearly marks the tool as the 'Research Button' and lists distinct outputs, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling research tools like auto_research_market or batch_research.

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?

It provides direct usage context: 'call it, then write the output to Notion,' and specifies a prerequisite: 'Requires Ollama running locally (default: http://localhost:11434).' However, it does not explain when to choose this over sibling automation/formatting tools, so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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