research_start

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

No annotations provided, but description reveals key behaviors: modes (fast vs deep) with time and source count estimates, and that notebook_id is optional (creates new if omitted). This adds useful context beyond parameters, though it doesn't cover error conditions or permissions.

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?

Description is very concise: two core sentences, a bullet list of use cases, and a workflow line. No superfluous words; key 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?

Given 5 parameters and an async workflow, the description adequately explains the process and references subsequent tools. It doesn't detail output format, but output schema exists (not shown) to compensate. Lacks mention of error handling.

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. Description adds minimal new meaning: mode explanation in schema is identical, and notebook_id behavior is restated. No additional context for query, source, or title beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it searches web or Google Drive to find new sources, with specific examples like 'deep research on X' and 'search web for Z'. It distinguishes from siblings by outlining the workflow research_start -> poll research_status -> research_import, setting it apart as the initiation step.

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?

Description provides explicit use cases (e.g., 'deep research on X', 'search web for Z') and a workflow, guiding when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the workflow implies that research_status and research_import are for subsequent steps.

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