reach_research

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs parallel queries, returns a merged Markdown bundle with per-source notes, and that the user must synthesize results. It also notes that Twitter/Reddit are conditional on configuration. This provides good behavioral insight without requiring annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality, and every word adds value. There is no redundancy or wasted text, achieving high efficiency.

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 (multiple sources, merged output) and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (merged Markdown with coverage notes) and the need for self-synthesis. It misses details about how the 'limit' parameter affects results, but overall it provides sufficient context for use.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'region' parameter by listing valid values ('india', 'western', '' for both). However, it does not explain 'query' (though obvious) or 'limit' (default 8). This partial compensation results in a score above baseline but not full.

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 that the tool performs cross-platform research by fanning out queries across multiple sources like web, Hacker News, news, YouTube, etc. The verb 'fans out the query' combined with the listed sources makes the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools, which suggest other focused operations.

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?

While the description implies use cases for broad research across sources, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like reach_search or reach_read. However, the context of 'cross-platform research' and the return format suggest it is suitable for comprehensive information gathering, providing moderate guidance.

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