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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of real behavioral value: the call may return either a status or a final report, and it is free to call. It omits polling guidance (how often, whether status values are terminal) and what the response looks like.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. The trailing "Free." is a fragment but earns its place by disclosing a cost trait that affects whether an agent calls repeatedly.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns; it does say status-or-report, which is the essential shape. It stops short of explaining how to tell which one you got back or what to do while the task is still running, which matters for a polling-style tool.

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 0% and the lone `id` parameter has no description at all. The description indirectly compensates by tying the id to a task "started with research", but it does not state whether it is the task id returned by research, whether it is URL-safe, or what form it takes.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (status or report of a research task) and ties the resource to the sibling that creates it (research). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from crawl_result, the other *_result sibling, so an agent must infer the pairing.

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?

"started with research" implies the prerequisite and the timing (call after kicking off a research task), which is genuine usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor a named alternative for crawl-based result retrieval.

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