research_deep

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

Annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint: true' and 'openWorldHint: true', so the agent knows the tool is safe and accesses external data. The description adds that optional 'File Search and MCP tools' can be used, but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., response format, length limits, result structure).

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?

The description is extremely concise—one sentence with no fluff. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) that could improve readability for an agent scanning quickly.

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 complex tool with 4 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the Deep Research agent does, how it operates, or what the output contains, leaving many agent questions unanswered.

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 param meaning is already clear from the schema. The description adds modest context by linking 'File Search' and 'MCP tools' to the respective parameters, but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 clearly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'default Deep Research agent', and mentions optional capabilities (File Search and MCP tools). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'research_web', which likely targets a narrower scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'research_web' or 'resume_research'). There are no instructions on prerequisites or implied context.

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