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

The description goes well beyond the basic annotations by disclosing that the workflow can save scoped research lessons unattended, that it never permits editor changes or promotion claims, and that it returns a workflowJobId to poll via ata_get_research_workflow_status. This is meaningful behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 tight sentences: the first delivers the action and core inputs, the second states the key behavioral caveat, and the third gives the expected return and next step. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 12-parameter tool with a nested scope object and no output schema, the description provides a useful return contract and polling route, plus important safety guardrails. However, it does not disambiguate this tool from sibling start/run/resume/cancel workflow tools, and it leaves several optional parameters under-documented, so the overall picture is adequate but incomplete.

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 only 33%, and the description does not sufficiently compensate. It names high-level input categories like scope, gate policy, search-family hints, and creative brief, but leaves important parameters such as minBaselineImprovement, requiredPromotionState, researchRunId, and caseStudyId semantically unexplained. The budgetCredits language largely repeats the schema's own description.

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 identifies the specific action ('Start') and resource ('platform-managed Algo Agent research workflow') and lists the primary inputs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling start tools like ata_start_research_job or ata_start_research_run, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 via the phrase 'platform-managed research workflow' and gives conditional guidance for autonomousResearchStateWrites, but it never explains when to choose this tool over ata_start_research_job, ata_start_research_run, or ata_resume_research_workflow. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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