Ultra-deep research (4 parallel channels)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: parallel multi-source sweeping, Jev reranking, synthesis of a cited brief, and free/keyless sources by default. It omits operational details like latency or rate limits, but the core non-obvious behaviors are stated.

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, front-loaded with the action, source list, processing steps, output, and auth posture. No filler or unnecessary repetition of the schema.

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 main workflow and output ('cited brief') are covered, but there is no output schema and no explicit statement of default channels, what the brief contains, or expected latency. For a three-parameter tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 documentation covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little about optional parameters: maxHits is not mentioned, and channels are listed at a high level without clarifying defaults or combination behavior.

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?

States a specific action ('Sweep ... channels in parallel'), enumerates concrete sources (Wikipedia/Brave, arXiv, GitHub/npm, HN/X), and names the deliverable ('cited brief'). This scope separates it from siblings like jev_rerank and hub_crawl without ambiguity.

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 conveys that this is for broad multi-channel research and that no API keys are needed by default, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative routing.

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