deep_research

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 discloses the general workflow (searching the web, reading top sources, producing a cited report) but does not mention read-only behavior, potential latency, rate limits, or any limitations. The description is truthful and somewhat informative, but leaves important operational behavior unaddressed.

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?

A single sentence with a clear chronological structure, no filler, and immediate front-loading of the core action ('Search the web'). Every phrase earns its place: 'read the top sources' and 'cited synthesis report' are distinct and necessary components. This is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 the two fully documented parameters and the presence of an output schema (likely covering the report structure), the description covers the essential process and outcome well. What is missing is more explicit context about when to use the tool versus siblings and a few behavioral notes, but the combination of description and schema is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%: both 'query' and 'max_sources' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description's phrasing ('research question', 'top results') mirrors the schema descriptions without adding new meaning about formats, constraints, or interpretation. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed what structured data already provides.

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 a specific verb sequence ('Search', 'read', 'return') with a clear deliverable ('a cited synthesis report'). It unambiguously identifies the tool's function and naturally distinguishes deep_research from siblings like search (just web results) or scrape/extract (page-level content gathering). The multi-step process is explicit and not a tautology.

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 comprehensive research with cited synthesis, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over search, scrape, or extract, nor does it give any 'instead of' guidance. Context makes the intended use reasonably clear, yet there are no exclusions or alternative routing as seen in higher-quality definitions.

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