agent_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states read-only behavior ('cannot spend money or send anything'), the step cap (~12) and time budget (~90s), the output shape (Markdown with sources plus the list of tool calls made), cost ($0.5 USDC per call), and p99 latency (60000ms). These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before committing a paid, slow call.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with what the tool does before diving into tool categories, examples, cost, and latency. Every clause is information-bearing, though the long parenthetical tool enumeration is slightly heavy.

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?

For a slow, paid, multi-tool agent with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, safety profile, cost, latency, step limits, and return format. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect back.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description mostly restates what the schema provides ('Up to 12 steps' maps to max_steps' 1–12 range) and adds no new syntax or format guidance for 'task' or 'max_steps' 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 names a specific verb+resource: it hands off a whole research/lookup task to an agent that plans steps and calls many tools, returning a Markdown answer. The nature of the tool (a meta-agent spanning many single-purpose siblings) makes its function unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like research_report or answer_with_sources, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Concrete examples clarify when to reach for it ('compare two DeFi protocols, check a company and its domain, or summarize what changed this week'). This gives clear usage context, but no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives among the many single-purpose sibling tools.

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