create_research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it is a creation operation and that it returns a run ID and brief metadata, but does not disclose cost/budget implications of max_budget_usd and max_iterations, permissions required, or whether creation immediately starts a run.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action front-loaded and the return value stated second. Efficient, though the second sentence covers return data that the output schema already handles.

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 10-parameter creation tool with a budget/iteration surface and no annotations, the description is thin. The output schema covers the return value, but the behavioral and parameter context an agent needs to invoke this correctly is largely absent.

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 0% across 10 parameters, and the description mentions only the generic notions of brief/scope/objectives. It never explains what products, competitors, source_scope, market_domain, max_documents, seed_problems, max_budget_usd, max_iterations, or seed_audiences actually mean or accept.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (create a market research initiative) and enumerates what the brief carries (research brief, scope, objectives). It is clearly distinct from mutating siblings like update_research_brief or step_research, though it doesn't name them.

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?

There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no alternative is named. The agent must infer that this is the entry point that precedes step_research, get_research_state, etc., purely from the name.

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