Research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the pipeline and the cited-report output, but omits operational details such as latency, rate limits, authentication needs, or failure modes for a web-dependent tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the full action sequence and output in one line.

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 only two parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly. The main missing element is usage context relative to sibling tools, but the core behavior is adequately covered.

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 100%, so both query and depth are already documented. The description adds only the idea of 'top results' and does not provide syntax or format details beyond what the input schema already supplies.

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 states specific verbs and resource actions: search the web, scrape top results, and return an aggregated cited report. This distinguishes it in substance from sibling tools like web_search and scrape, although it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 implies a multi-step research workflow but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus web_search or scrape. There are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose among alternatives.

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