research_start

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: search time (~30s fast, ~5min deep), source counts, and asynchronous polling. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the async workflow is clear.

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 and well-structured: purpose first, then usage examples, workflow, and argument list. No superfluous words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, workflow, and all parameters. Output schema exists for return values. Could be more complete by mentioning error cases or prerequisites, but overall sufficient for an async search 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%, but the description provides clear, actionable explanations for all five parameters (e.g., query, source, mode, notebook_id, title). This fully compensates for the lack of 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?

The description clearly states 'Search web or Google Drive to FIND NEW sources' with specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on source discovery, but could more explicitly contrast with other search tools like notebook_query.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this for:' examples and a workflow (research_start -> poll -> import). However, it does not specify when NOT to use this tool, such as for querying existing notebooks.

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