deep_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and discloses key behaviors: queries Google, uses Readability, includes retry logic, supports multiple search types, and returns full content. It lacks details on rate limits or auth but is still strongly transparent for a read-oriented tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: two sentences cover the core mechanic and key differentiator with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Considering six parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main behavior and consolidated result, but does not detail the return structure or cite behavior. Still, it is reasonably complete for a search tool with rich schema descriptions.

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 compensate. It adds minimal extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, though it does reinforce the search_type meaning by mentioning web/news/images support.

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 the tool performs a comprehensive web search by querying Google, fetching full content via Readability extraction, and returning consolidated content. It distinguishes itself from siblings with 'TRUE deep research' and explicitly contrasts with 'not just snippets.'

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 description conveys when to use the tool (when deep, full-page research is needed) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. It relies on the implied contrast with snippet-based searches.

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