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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses performance (30-60 seconds), cost tiers ($0.20/$0.35), the internal steps (sub-questions, dedupe), and a clear caution about timeout behavior. This is rich behavioral context that substantially helps an agent anticipate 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: the first explains what it does, the second differentiates from `research`, and the third provides essential operational and pricing details. It is information-dense without being wordy.

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 tool is complex, but the description covers the full workflow, the return value's shape (inline citations, key findings, gaps), the time and cost behavior, and the differentiation from siblings. No output schema exists, yet the description adequately explains what the agent will receive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the depth enum details and default are fully captured in the schema. Thus no extra value is added here.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Multi-step cited research' and details the process: plans sub-questions, searches each, fetches/dedupes sources, and synthesizes an answer with citations, key findings, and gaps. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool `research`, making its distinct purpose unmistakable.

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 directly names the alternative `research` and explains when that tool is appropriate (one search + summary) versus `deep_research` (multi-step decomposition, citations per claim). It also gives explicit operational guidance: SLOW, use generous timeout, do not retry on timeout. This effectively covers when to use and when not to use.

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