web_search_deep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the multi-step behavior (sub-queries, cross-verification, synthesis) and the output characteristic (citations), plus the latency trade-off. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but this is a search tool, so coverage is solid.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states the purpose and mode, second explains the process and output, third lists use cases and the trade-off. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the key identity.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the mode, process, use cases, and latency. It doesn't explicitly state return structure beyond 'citations', but it's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including guidance to be specific and decomposable. The tool description's mention of decomposing into sub-queries reinforces this but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond 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 that this is a deep, high-accuracy web search mode that decomposes questions into sub-queries and synthesizes cited answers. It distinguishes itself from faster siblings by emphasizing accuracy and longer runtime, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It explicitly lists suitable use cases: fact-checking, research reports, technical research, and multi-source verification. It also warns that it takes longer, implying faster alternatives exist, but it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name sibling tools.

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