deep_read_topic

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explains default behavior (result dict with pdf_paths), side effects (write_graph, write_to_zotero), fallback (include_scihub), and output format details (local paths, no base64). This provides substantial transparency, though it could mention rate limits or authentication requirements if applicable.

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 divided into two focused paragraphs: the first states the high-level purpose, and the second details optional behaviors. Every sentence provides useful information, though it could be slightly shortened without losing key details. The structure supports quick scanning.

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 tool's complexity (25 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main output structure and key options but omits explanations for many parameters. It provides enough context for basic usage but may leave agents uncertain about lower-level settings. Return values beyond paths are not detailed.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains several key parameters (render_top_pages, attach_top_pdf, include_scihub, write_graph, etc.) and their effects. However, many parameters (e.g., limit_per_source, related_limit, download_top_n, chunk settings) are not described, leaving gaps. The description adds value but incompletely compensates for the lack of schema 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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Search, download, extract full text, and return evidence chunks plus local PDF paths for direct inspection.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like research_topic or search_literature by emphasizing local file paths and optional inline content, making its unique value proposition evident.

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 guidance on when to opt into inline content (e.g., 'when your client benefits: render_top_pages=True appends top paper's relevant pages as images...'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its siblings (e.g., research_topic, search_literature) or when to avoid it. The usage context is partially clear but lacks comparative guidance.

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