deep_research_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost (0.150 USDC) and the return shape (executive briefing markdown with citations and takeaways), but says nothing about auth requirements (the x402 param), latency, failure modes, or source-verification behavior.

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?

Well front-loaded: the core purpose and price lead, followed by labeled 'Usage Guidelines' and 'Returns' sections. Slightly redundant to restate the return format when an output schema exists, but the description is compact and free of filler.

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 values need not be re-explained, and the cost plus primary use case are covered. The notable gap is the absence of annotations and any description of auth/permission behavior around auth_token_or_tx, which an agent paying per call would benefit from knowing.

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 query, max_sources (1-5), and auth_token_or_tx. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 compound action (multi-source web crawling + AI synthesis) and a concrete deliverable (executive research briefing), which is clearly differentiated from the 'quick' sibling search_web_quick by the word 'deep'/comprehensive. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so an agent must infer the contrast from the adjective alone.

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 'Usage Guidelines' section gives a clear contextual trigger ('use when an agent needs a comprehensive deep dive ... with verified source citations'). However it never states when NOT to use it, nor names search_web_quick as the cheap/fast alternative, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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