gather_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is keyless, performs search/scrape/dedup, returns full-text sources without writing an answer, and provides numbered blocks. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive, but the 'retrieval' nature implies safety. Some details like error handling or rate limits are missing.

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 well-structured with a bold lead sentence, usage instructions, and a clear parameter list. It is slightly verbose but each sentence provides value. The front-loading of the key concept ('keyless web retrieval') is effective. The length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 has 5 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main purpose, parameters, and usage workflow. It lacks details on error handling, empty results, or performance characteristics. However, the output schema likely covers return value format, so the description is moderately complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: query (one focused query, issue multiple for multi-part), max_sources (default 10, bounded 1-20), chars_per_source (default 7000, bounded 500-10000), ranker (lexical default, flashrank optional, or none), and render_thin_pages (sends thin-page URLs to Jina Reader). These details add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'keyless web retrieval: search + scrape + dedup, returning the top FULL-TEXT sources for a query WITHOUT writing an answer.' It explains the workflow for research. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like quick_search, gather_bundle, or read_url, missing an opportunity to clarify when to use this tool over others.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to research a question: call it several times with different focused sub-queries, read the numbered [Source N] blocks, cross-reference them, then write the answer yourself.' It also advises what to do if sources lack an answer. However, it does not contrast with alternative tools or specify when not to use it.

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