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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the internal workflow, public-source restriction, prohibition on private accounts and breach data, chat-scope requirement, latency expectation, and usage/caching cost behavior. These are substantive operational details not captured by readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or destructiveHint.

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 what the tool does and then layers usage, exclusions, latency, source restrictions, and cost notes efficiently. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information despite the tool's complexity.

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?

The behavioral context is strong and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a complex tool with low schema description coverage, the missing parameter guidance leaves a meaningful completeness gap.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, but it explains only the query and subject matter loosely. It does not clarify the depth, format, sandbox, or idempotency parameters, and only idempotency_key has a schema description.

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 verb and resource: run a multi-step research agent and return one cited Markdown report. It clearly distinguishes this from single web search and from person-focused siblings, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with examples such as market and competitor questions, company diligence, product comparisons, and VIN background. It also states when not to use it by naming search_people and build_dossier for people, and create_lookup_job when a long call cannot be held.

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