deep_research_research_query

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope (authentication context) but does not state whether the action is read-only, modifies state, or has side effects. The behavioral impact is unclear.

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 (three sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. The routing detail, while technical, is relevant for understanding execution context. Every sentence contributes information, though the parameter descriptions could be more compact.

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 tool's purpose (research query) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the relationship between 'message' and 'inputs', or the expected output semantics. For a domain action tool, more context about the research query capability is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults. However, it does not specify the expected format or constraints of 'inputs', leaving some ambiguity.

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 it runs the 'research_query' action of the deep_research domain, specifying the routing mechanism. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deep_research_chat and deep_research_synthesize by name, but does not explain what the action achieves beyond 'run the action', leaving some ambiguity about its business purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description does not help an agent decide between this and other deep_research tools or sibling tools.

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