research_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns a string of summarized search results, which gives basic insight into the operation. However, it lacks details on potential limitations, source reliability, or response behavior beyond the summary, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise, with the core action in the first sentence and a brief Args/Returns structure. It contains no filler, and every sentence serves a purpose, making it well-structured and easily scannable.

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?

Given the tool's simple nature (one parameter, string return), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use, and what it returns. However, it does not elaborate on the nature of the 'summarized' results or any potential limitations, which would enhance completeness, but for a straightforward web search tool, it is largely sufficient.

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?

The schema only defines a single 'query' parameter with no description, so the description must compensate. The description provides a minimal definition: 'query: The search query.' This adds some semantic clarity but essentially restates the parameter name without specifying query format or constraints, making it only marginally helpful.

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 function with a specific verb ('Search the web') and resource ('a specific topic'), and adds context about when the information is needed (up-to-date, technical details). While there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this tool when you need up-to-date information, technical details, or domain knowledge that you don't possess.' It provides clear context for invocation, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, which is acceptable given no sibling tools exist.

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