Recursive Cited Research

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it requires an external API key, calls library_answer as a sub-step, recurses with halved breadth, and stops on coverage/depth/time/no-new-sources. It does not repeat safety hints or contradict them.

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 dense but every sentence adds distinct information: the algorithm, the stopping conditions, the auth requirement, and the response_format distinctions. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids filler or restating the title.

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 recursive tool, the description covers the main workflow, termination criteria, hard prerequisite, and output options. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be spelled out. Nothing required for an agent to decide on and invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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. The description adds extra meaning by explaining response_format 'detailed' returns per-round breakdown, elapsed time, citation grades, resolvability, and objectives/coverage outline, and by clarifying that breadth halves each round. This goes beyond the schema's brief parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Deep research on a topic' and gives a concrete algorithm: outline objectives, generate queries, answer via library_answer, extract learnings, recurse. This is a specific verb plus resource and process, and it clearly distinguishes the tool from single-shot siblings like library_ask or library_search by framing it as a recursive orchestration tool.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Deep research on a topic' with 3–7 coverage objectives and recursion. It also implies it should be used for multi-round, exhaustive research rather than simple lookups, though it does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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