Research brief

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description must clarify side effects. It discloses that it performs real web work and costs credits from the account wallet, which is critical behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether results are cached, how long it takes, or any rate limits, but the disclosed cost and web access are valuable beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition and immediately distinguishing features. Every clause earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 research tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: what it produces (a brief), how it works (web research), and the cost implication. It doesn't specify asynchronous behavior or potential delays, but given the tool's unique role among siblings and the schema's completeness, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level details, merely echoing the 'focus' concept. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 converts a company or topic into a multi-source, citation-backed brief, covering what it is, recent changes, and what matters. It explicitly distinguishes itself as 'Real web work', setting it apart from the parsing-oriented sibling tools like parserail_parse and parserail_extract.

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 use for research (vs. parsing local files) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It gives context ('Real web work', costs credits) but leaves the selection decision to the agent without direct comparison to sibling tools.

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