Research Compare

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the cost profile ('can incur two research workloads') and explicitly bounding behavior ('no synthesis, merging or scoring'), which matters given readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. Attribution of each report to its engine is also disclosed, though permissions and failure behavior when an engine errors are not covered.

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 short sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the operation and output, the second sets cost expectations and the division of responsibility. Nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers operation, cost, and return contract ('attributed reports'). Missing only the error/degraded-result behavior when one of the two engines fails.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'exactly two different engine profiles' constraint in the engines description. The prose only reinforces the verbatim re-use of the query, adding little 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?

States a specific verb (run the same question), a specific resource (two engines), and a concrete output (attributed reports). The 'exactly two' constraint distinguishes it from the single-engine research_run/research_deep siblings, though no sibling is named.

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 'exactly two engines' constraint implies the comparison use case, and the note that no synthesis is performed clarifies what the caller must do next. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over research_run, research_deep, or research_web.

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