deep-search-query-task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool queries status and results, implying a read operation, but does not mention whether it blocks, requires authentication, handles errors (e.g., task not found), or returns immediately. The lack of details on async behavior (e.g., polling vs. waiting) leaves significant transparency gaps.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. While it could benefit from more detail, it achieves efficiency without verbosity.

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 complexity of an async task query and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains (e.g., status codes, result structure, error messages). Without annotations, the agent lacks information about the return value, which is critical for a query tool.

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%, and the description adds no information about the single parameter task_id. It does not specify its format, source (e.g., from a create-task response), or any constraints. The agent receives no guidance on how to obtain or construct the task_id, making the parameter essentially 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 clearly states the tool's function: querying the status and results of a deep search asynchronous task. It uses a specific verb ('query') and resource ('deep search async task status and results'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like deep-search-create-task (creation) and deep-search-sync (synchronous), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites, polling frequency, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., deep-search-sync) might be more appropriate. The sibling tool names offer some implicit context, but the description itself is silent on usage.

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