timps_deep_research_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the internal process (decompose, parallel search, cross-reference) and output (sourced report with citations and bottom-line answer), but it omits limitations, potential side effects (e.g., many network requests), authorization requirements, or failure handling. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's role. Every clause adds value—what it does, how it works, and what it returns. There is no redundancy or fluff, though the '[N] citations' placeholder is slightly awkward.

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 a complex research agent with no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview of inputs and outputs, but lacks operational details like expected runtime, format of the report, or constraints. It is sufficient for basic selection and invocation but not fully complete.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further meaning about how the parameters are used (e.g., the role of 'language' in the report), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is a multi-hop, multi-source research planner that decomposes queries, runs parallel web searches, cross-references, and returns a sourced report with citations and a bottom-line answer. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like timps_web_search or timps_research_agent.

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 its use for complex, multi-hop research tasks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. There is no comparison with sibling research tools, so guidance is limited to inferred context.

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