research

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors like merging/deduping results, fetching top sources with citations, and automatic rendered fetch for JS-heavy pages. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'top sources' means in terms of ranking criteria.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence explains the core multi-step functionality, and the second provides important behavioral context about rendering. No wasted words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 complex tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains the high-level workflow well but doesn't provide enough information about parameter usage, return values, or behavioral constraints needed for effective tool invocation.

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?

With 16 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only mentions one parameter ('rendered') and its effect. It doesn't explain what most parameters do (like 'categories', 'engines', 'time_range', 'safesearch', etc.) or how they affect the research process. The description fails to compensate for the significant schema coverage gap.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('search', 'merge and dedupe', 'fetch') and resources ('multiple queries', 'top sources with citations'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search' and 'fetch_url' by describing a multi-step research process that combines searching and fetching with automatic rendering.

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 clear context about when to use this tool by mentioning 'rendered fetch is automatic for JS-heavy pages' and 'set rendered=True to force browser mode', which helps differentiate it from simpler search or fetch tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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