chain_full_research

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

No annotations exist, so the description is the sole source. It discloses a parallel collection workflow but omits behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication details beyond the API key parameter, and whether it modifies data.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with an emoji and key concept. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy or waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (parallel multi-source collection) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain output format, error behavior, or success criteria, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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 50% (query described, apiKey not). The description adds natural language examples for 'query' but does not clarify 'apiKey'. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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's purpose: comprehensive research (종합 리서치) that performs parallel collection of AI search, statutes, precedents, and interpretations. It explicitly mentions handling complex questions in one go, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual sources.

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 provides clear context: use for complex questions needing multiple source types. It implies when to use but does not explicitly exclude simple queries or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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