Глубокое исследование / Deep research

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: time range (10s–2min), cost model, non-idempotence (repeating a topic produces a new result and is billed again), and the caveat that missing sources means the output is unverified. 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 well-organized with clear sections (When, Returns, Time, Cost) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the content is duplicated in Russian and English, which lengthens it without adding new information, so it barely misses a 5.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers behavior, return format, failure mode, time expectations, and cost. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers the sole parameter 'query' at 100% with a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond calling it a question/research topic, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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 'runs multi-step research, forms its own queries, searches, reads sources and returns a finished answer with links' – a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings, especially naming web_search as the alternative for simpler needs.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, naming web_search as the cheaper/faster alternative for single facts or link lists. This is exactly the kind of clear contextual differentiation expected.

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