research_topic

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It discloses that the tool performs search and extraction, and that depth controls number of pages. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or behavior on errors. For a multi-step workflow, more detail is needed.

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?

Two sentences with clear structure: first states overall workflow, second describes the depth parameter. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., list steps) but remains efficient without verbosity.

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 complexity (multi-step, 3 parameters, no output schema or annotations), the description covers the process and return format ('compiled research brief with sources') but lacks detail on error handling, limits, or the omitted api_key parameter. It is adequate but not complete.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description explains 'query' implicitly and 'depth' explicitly (controls pages 1-5), but omits any mention of the 'api_key' parameter, leaving it undocumented. This is a significant 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?

Description clearly states it's a multi-step research workflow that combines web search and extraction to produce a research brief. This distinguishes it from pure search (web_search) or extraction (extract_article) tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from autonomous_research, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 usage for quick research by controlling depth, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deep_research or autonomous_research. No when-not or alternatives mentioned.

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