research_web

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

Discloses a fixed high thinking level for quality, fast response time, and returns citations. Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld), it adds behavioral context about the reasoning cost and output format. No contradiction with 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?

The description is very concise: three sentences plus a bullet list of use cases. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Well-structured for easy scanning.

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 the presence of an output schema (so return values are documented), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral traits adequately. Could improve by noting the difference from 'research_deep', but overall sufficient.

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 the description does not need to explain parameters much. Description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema descriptions for 'query' and 'include_thoughts'. Baseline score of 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 it performs fast web research with Gemini grounding and returns citations. It specifies the verb and resource (research web). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'research_deep', which might be for deeper research.

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?

Detailed list of use cases provided (quick lookups, fact-checking, current events, etc.), giving clear context for when to use. Lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparisons to alternatives like 'research_deep'.

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