Veroq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates cost ('3 credits'), return structure (summary, confidence assessment, co-occurrences), and scope (multi-source). Minor gap: does not explicitly confirm read-only nature or idempotency, though implied by 'research' versus mutation verbs.

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?

Excellent structural organization with clear section headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Information is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Zero redundant text; every line conveys distinct operational information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates with a detailed RETURNS section enumerating all output components (confidence assessment, entity map with co-occurrences, information gaps). For a 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, this provides complete contextual information for agent invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage (baseline 3). The description adds value by providing a concrete JSON example showing realistic parameter values ('query': 'impact of AI regulation...', 'max_sources': 20), which clarifies expected input format and usage patterns beyond the basic schema definitions.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Run[s] deep multi-source research on a topic' with specific outputs (structured report, entity map, information gaps). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool veroq_search by contrasting 'deep' research with 'quick lookups', establishing precise scope.

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?

Contains an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section stating 'For thorough investigation of a topic requiring analysis across many sources' and directly names the alternative: 'Use veroq_search for quick lookups instead.' This provides clear positive guidance, negative constraints, and sibling differentiation.

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