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. It discloses the multi-stage pipeline and, unusually helpfully, the per-depth credit cost (10/20/35), which is real behavioral context. It omits latency expectations, failure behavior, and whether partial results are returned.

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 core capability and followed by the cost table. No filler; every clause conveys either what the tool does or what it costs.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the pipeline, the return artifact (cited report), raw-vs-synthesized behavior implicitly, and pricing. Remaining gaps — runtime, partial-failure behavior, and the scope of the other parameters — are modest given the schema fully documents inputs.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by mapping cost to the `depth` enum values (standard 10, deep 20, comprehensive 35) — information that exists nowhere in the schema. The other seven parameters (synthesis, max_sources, enrich_entities, etc.) get no elaboration beyond their schema text.

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 verb and resource ('Multi-step deep research') and enumerates the pipeline stages (search, scrape, enrich, synthesize into a cited report), which distinguishes it from thin siblings like search or scrape. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, but the pipeline framing makes the composite nature clear.

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 implies usage for research questions requiring multi-step synthesis, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as search, scrape, or site-intel, and no when-not guidance. An agent must infer that this is the heavyweight option.

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