search_research

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about ranking, matching semantics, permissions, or result volume. The presence of an output schema covers return shape, but nothing about how search behaves is disclosed.

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 clean sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from tight editing of a complete definition. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, but a search tool with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no usage routing guidance leaves the agent guessing about both query semantics and when to invoke it. The definition does not do enough for a tool with two undocumented 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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters, and the description does not compensate: it does not explain what a query string matches against (titles, bodies, authors) or that limit defaults to 3 and caps result count. Both parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 names a specific verb (Search) and resource (the institution's research documents), which cleanly separates it from the news-, event-, and profile-oriented siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any named alternative, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be chosen over ask_followup, analyze_news, or other siblings, and no stated preconditions or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the one-line purpose.

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