research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the sequence of operations (search -> scrape -> rerank -> summarize), which is the core behavior. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or failure handling, but for a read-only research pipeline, the disclosed process is sufficiently transparent.

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, compact sentence that uses an arrow pipeline to efficiently convey the tool's flow. Every word is purposeful, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 that this is a composite tool orchestrating four sibling sub-tools, the description effectively communicates the end-to-end nature. The output schema and fully documented parameters cover return values and inputs, so the description is complete enough for the agent to understand the tool's role, though a bit more context about typical use cases could be added.

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 100%, with each parameter fully described in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific context beyond the pipeline, so it does not augment the schema's already comprehensive parameter definitions.

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 explicitly states the tool performs an end-to-end pipeline: search all sources, scrape, rerank, and summarize. This clearly defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like search_all or scrape_url, which cover only individual steps.

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 'end-to-end' phrasing implies that this tool is used when the user wants the full research workflow in one call. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over using the sibling tools individually, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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