Research a topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so comprehensively. It discloses provider refusal (never swaps), absence of re-sorting or relevance filtering, provenance formatting, the advisory (non-blocking) nature of downstream checks, and the distinction between verified findings and untrusted hand-supplied strings. This goes far beyond the schema.

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?

Though long, every sentence earns its place. The description is logically structured: purpose, alternatives, provenance value, downstream use, recency decision, provider policy, output handling, and explicit do-not-summarize warning. It front-loads the core action and builds context without fluff.

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?

This is a complex tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description fills every gap: what it returns (findings with URLs and dates), order, provider behavior, configuration, downstream integration, and failure modes (refused unconfigured provider). An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by detailing provider-specific behavior ('Brave returns ranked snippets with no synthesis; Tavily also returns a synthesis (`answer`) plus its own sources') and reinforcing window semantics ('Use "day" for something that happened in the last few hours'). max_results lacks schema description but its schema bounds (1-20, default 10) provide adequate meaning; the description does not add further detail there, so not a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'fetch attributable findings on a topic from a single configured research provider.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_writing_brief and score_draft by emphasizing provenance and downstream checks, making its unique role unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'If you already have live web access, use it directly and pass what you find as `research` to build_writing_brief instead.' It also instructs when to ask the user if recency is unclear, and explicitly warns against summarizing findings into `research`, naming the alternative approach clearly.

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