Research Topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It states that it fetches from multiple sources and images, but it does not disclose that it likely stores research results to the session, that it may mutate session state, or that it involves network calls with potential latency/cost. The description is accurate but incomplete regarding behavioral side effects.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a bulleted list of sources. It front-loads the main action and avoids unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 an output schema exists and all parameters are described, the description is mostly self-contained. However, it lacks workflow context—such as whether research results are saved to the session or whether this is a one-time call versus iterative research. It is adequate but not fully complete for understanding its place in the broader tool suite.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including depth options and specific_queries. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Research topic from multiple sources + fetch relevant images.' It names concrete sources (Wikipedia, arXiv, DuckDuckGo, image search), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_research_summary or generate_outline. The verb and object are specific enough to understand its role.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as request_more_research or add_custom_source. It does not mention whether it should be called after create_blog_session or before approve_research, nor does it explain how depth choices affect workflow. The only implicit hint is the presence of session_id and the sources listed.

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