research_start

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

No annotations, so description carries the burden. It discloses non-blocking behavior, the poll_task_id contract, and the deep web-only constraint. This goes beyond what schema reveals.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the main action, then workflow, then parameter options. Every sentence is informative.

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 the async nature, it explains the full lifecycle: start, poll, import. Output schema exists, so return values aren't described in prose, but poll_task_id is mentioned. Minor omission of error/edge cases, but overall very usable.

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 explains notebook (name/ID), source (web/drive), mode (fast/deep) and the deep-is-web-only constraint. Query is implied by the tool's purpose, and parameter names are self-explanatory.

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?

Cleary states the tool starts a research session in a notebook, and distinguishes from siblings by referencing the follow-up tools (research_status, research_import, research_cancel). It has a specific verb and resource.

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 clear workflow guidance: poll research_status until completed, then research_import. It also explains source/mode options and the deep web-only constraint. Slight lack of explicit when-not-to-use, but context is strong.

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