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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that this is a quota-consuming job (one research, or two with deep), that cache-served data still counts against allowance, and that it returns an id to poll, implying asynchronous execution. It doesn't cover failure modes or how long a job takes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and how each input form is handled, then the returned id, then cost. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by saying a research id is returned for polling with get_research. Quota and deep-mode availability are covered, but async timing and error behavior are not, leaving a small gap for a job-starting tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that `text` is accepted either as a raw phrase or as a description that gets converted into search queries, and that `deep` costs double. It adds no extra detail on `locale` beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Starts a niche research') and distinguishes two distinct input modes (phrase vs. plain-language description) with what each does. It also names the follow-up sibling (get_research) the agent needs to poll with, so the tool is unambiguous against its siblings.

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?

Clear usage context: pass a phrase for a direct scan, pass a description when the idea needs to be turned into queries, and poll results with get_research afterward. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over compare_research or follow_niche, so no explicit exclusions are given.

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