run_research_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions async polling ('Returns a task_id for polling') and broad actions (search, read, synthesize), but omits authentication needs, rate limits, data privacy, error handling, or whether it is read-only. The behavior is partially described but insufficiently transparent.

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 concise: two sentences and an example, with no filler. It front-loads the key action and async nature. While it could include more detail, the structure is efficient and immediately clear.

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 6 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and an existing output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not elaborate on output format, webhook usage, or parameter effects. The description is minimal and relies heavily on the tool name and sibling context, missing many details needed for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly references the query parameter via the example and does not explain webhook_url, output_fields, user_location, user_timezone, or webhook_format. No parameter names or purposes are mentioned, leaving agents to infer meaning from context.

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 'Execute a one-time deep web research task' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_scout (recurring) and run_browsing_task by emphasizing 'one-time' and 'deep web.' The example provides concrete usage context.

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 for one-time web research via phrases like 'one-time' and 'deep web research,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., run_browsing_task or create_scout). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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