research_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers unusually rich detail: output format and length, citation model, sources list returned, error/no-charge threshold, cost per call, and p99 latency. This is strong disclosure for a no-annotation 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?

Dense but front-loaded: artifact, source mix, usage, parameters, error behavior, cost, and latency all appear in one paragraph. It is not wasteful, but could be more scannable with structured segments.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters, the description covers output, source acquisition, error/cost/latency, and core options well. Missing chain details and deeper token/domain semantics keep it from a 5.

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 86%, so baseline is 3; the description adds default kind and length-dependent word count beyond the schema. However, chain remains undocumented in both the schema and description, which is a remaining gap.

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?

States a specific artifact: an AI-written Markdown report on a topic, company, or token, with word counts and a named source set. It distinguishes itself as a cited report generator, but does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings such as company_brief or answer_with_sources.

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?

Says 'Use for due diligence and briefings' and gives kind/language options, which is clear contextual guidance. It does not name when-not to use it or route the agent to alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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