Research

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key side effect (always creates a new thread) plus the multi-provider fan-out and synthesis behavior. It does not mention latency or cost implications in the description, though the schema covers those for mode and budgetTier.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the routing rule, then the behavior. Nothing is redundant, though the final sentence on synthesis is somewhat expansive relative to its value.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does describe the return shape ('unified report with cross-referenced citations and conflict resolution') and the thread-creation side effect. It is largely complete, with only auth/rate-limit style details left unaddressed.

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%, with mode, providers, and budgetTier each documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the structured schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Submit a deep research query') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling follow_up tool. An agent can tell this is the entry point for new research without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('To follow up on existing research, use the follow_up tool instead') along with the condition that selects it. It also flags the always-new-thread behavior, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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