research

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the pipeline steps (search, aggregation, synthesis, citation formatting), providing good behavioral insight. It does not mention potential costs or API key requirements, but the pipeline description is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences: the first is a clear title-like statement, the second outlines the pipeline. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 existence of an output schema (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values. It explains the workflow and sufficiently differentiates from siblings, though it could mention potential dependencies like network access.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the pipeline (e.g., top_k affects per-source results) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what is in the schema.

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's a 'Full research pipeline' combining search and synthesis with citations, and lists the pipeline steps. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' (just search) and 'synthesize' (just synthesis).

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 use for comprehensive research tasks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'search' or 'synthesize'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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