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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what it produces but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or any potential limitations. The behavior is only implied by 'investigate' and 'produce'.

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 front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently enumerates the output components. It is concise and information-dense, with no filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the expected output. It lists the key data points produced, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role. It could be improved by mentioning the return format or clarifying the investigation process, but it does not leave critical gaps.

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%, so both parameters (topic, objective) are already documented. The description adds context about the output format but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema itself, which already states 'Topic to investigate' and 'Decision-oriented investigation objective'.

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 investigates a topic and produces machine-readable web intelligence with specific output components (facts, evidence, confidence, agreements, conflicts, source URLs). This distinguishes it from generic search tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like research_answer or search_evidence.

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 its siblings. It does not mention when an agent should prefer this over search_evidence, research_answer, or other search-related tools, nor does it offer any exclusion criteria.

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