Research Deep Max

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds beyond that: this is an autonomous agent trading speed for completeness, which implies long runtime and heavy web usage. It stops short of stating expected duration, cost, or that collaborative_planning returns a plan instead of a report (that detail lives only in the schema).

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?

Front-loaded with the core identity, then the when-to-use triggers, then the alternative. Efficient, though the trigger list is somewhat long and mixes user phrasing with internal scheduling terms ('offline/nightly') that could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted. Combined with a fully documented parameter schema and read-only annotations, the agent has nearly everything needed. The remaining gap is operational expectations: runtime, cost, and that this is a long-running autonomous job rather than a quick query.

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 each of the six parameters including the disabled mcp_servers and the collaborative_planning two-step flow is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the work.

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+resource+scope: an autonomous research agent run at maximum comprehensiveness. It immediately differentiates itself from the closest sibling by naming research_deep as the ordinary-depth alternative.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions (user says 'Max', 'deep research max', 'exhaustive', 'due diligence', 'literature review', 'board-ready', 'offline/nightly') plus the selection rule: maximum completeness over speed. It also names the exclusion case and the alternative tool for ordinary research.

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