run_subagent

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It enumerates the five-step subagent workflow (query generation, web searches, content fetching, evaluation, returning results), which meaningfully explains the tool's internal behavior beyond simple 'runs a subagent.' However, it omits side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits.

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 succinct and well-structured: an opening statement of purpose, a clarifying benefit, and a numbered list of steps. Every sentence/carry contributes value, with no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's operation thoroughly enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it. It explains the subagent's process, but does not specify the format of the returned results or whether the tool has side effects on the session, leaving some uncertainty for a complex orchestration tool.

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 schema already provides descriptions for sessionId and aspect (67% coverage), and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The undocumented max_content_per_page parameter is left unexplained in the description, but its default, min, and max constraints in the schema provide partial meaning. No compensation for that gap is offered.

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 uses a specific verb–resource pair: 'spawn and run a subagent' for 'a specific research aspect,' clearly stating the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_search or fetch_page, which directly perform searches/fetches rather than orchestrating a multi-step research subagent.

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 implies usage when fine-grained manual control over the multi-agent research process is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or identify alternative tools. It offers context but no concrete exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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