deep_research

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

The description is transparent about the internal process: it runs SearXNG metasearch, opens pages with a real browser, distills relevant passages, and returns a merged digest. It also explains the refresh parameter's cache behavior, and the readOnlyHint annotation matches the read-only nature of the tool.

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 well-structured with a headline summary followed by a compact parameter list. It conveys substantial detail without unnecessary fluff, keeping every sentence purposeful.

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 fairly complex tool, the description covers the search engine, browser-based reading, per-source distillation, merged output, and cache refresh behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect as a result.

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?

Even though the schema has no per-parameter descriptions, the tool description compensates by explaining every parameter: query, max_sources, max_results, per_source_chars, time_range, category, language, and refresh. It includes value ranges and concrete examples, which is more informative than the raw schema.

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 opens with a crisp verb-resource statement: 'Search the web AND read the top sources in one shot.' It clearly differentiates this combined tool from the individual sibling tools by emphasizing the one-shot search-and-read workflow.

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 explicitly says 'Best first call for any research question,' giving a strong and direct recommendation for when to use the tool. This makes the usage context clear without needing to infer from sibling names.

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