Deep Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful constraints — the search is limited to Prothom Alo and covers a large archive — but it does not mention return behavior, pagination, rate limits, or access requirements. It is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the scope limitation follows, and the sibling alternative is stated efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete: scope, limitation, and sibling routing are all covered. It does not describe the return format, but the existence of an output schema reduces the need for that.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'query' or 'limit' parameters beyond their names. The phrase 'full archive' hints at query scope, but it does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Prothom Alo's full archive'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from scan_news by noting that this tool covers only Prothom Alo.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool and which sibling to use instead: 'For current coverage across every paper, use scan_news instead.' It also explains why, because only Prothom Alo exposes a searchable API.

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