deep_research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It outlines the multi-step, autonomous process but omits details like authentication requirements (though api_key parameter hints at it), rate limits, or side effects. It adds moderate context beyond the name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core function.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description lacks details on parameter usage and depth of research. For a complex multi-step tool, more context on the process and parameter semantics is needed.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (topic, depth, api_key). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to clarify what depth means or how api_key is used.

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 conducts autonomous multi-step research, searching, reading, and synthesizing findings. It distinguishes from simpler siblings like web_search and browse_page, though it overlaps with autonomous_research and research_topic.

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 implies when to use this tool (for multi-step synthesis) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Siblings like web_search or browse_page are not referenced for exclusion.

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