discovery_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that later waves consume a global budget, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it omits any other effects: whether it modifies research state, whether it can be called multiple times, what happens to existing results, or any side effects. The budget note is a small positive, but overall it is far from 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 one short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It packs no information about the tool's purpose or parameters, so the brevity is not an asset. The single sentence does not front-load any useful content; it is cryptic and leaves too much implicit.

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 tool has four parameters, including a nested retrieval specification, and an output schema is present. However, the description gives no indication of what queries should look like, what purpose means, how the retrieval spec is used, or what the output contains. For a tool of this complexity, the description is severely inadequate.

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%, meaning the description adds no explanation for any of the four parameters (research_id, queries, purpose, retrieval). The schema itself has minimal descriptions (only for a couple of nested fields), but the top-level parameters are undocumented. The description does not mention any parameter names or their roles, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses the verb 'run' and the resource 'retrieval wave', but 'retrieval wave' is jargon and doesn't clarify what the tool actually retrieves or searches for. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like plan_research or screen_sources, and the name 'discovery_search' is not echoed in the description. It is not a tautology, but it is vague enough that an agent could not infer the tool's core function.

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 phrase 'additional retrieval wave' implies this is for follow-up retrievals, and the mention of 'global follow-up budget' hints at a cost. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like research_unknowns or review_candidates, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. The agent is left to guess the intended trigger.

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