Check Gemini Deep Research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover most behavioral traits. The description adds that it returns status updates and elapsed time while in progress, which is useful context for polling. It doesn't contradict annotations. The description is adequate given the strong annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence and a parameter/return list. It front-loads the core purpose. Some redundancy exists with the input schema (e.g., parameter defaults are repeated), but it's compact and organized for scanning. Slightly verbose with the return fields listed, but acceptable.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and return behavior. It mentions statuses and error handling. Given that an output schema exists and annotations are strong, the description is nearly complete. Minor gap: it doesn't explain the polling pattern or when the job expires, but that's acceptable for this 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly documents both parameters: job_id as the tracking ID and include_citations with its default. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining what the job_id is and what include_citations does. This matches the baseline for tools where the description compensates for missing 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 the tool checks the status of a Deep Research job and returns the complete report once finished. It names the verb 'checks', the resource 'Deep Research job', and the specific outcome. It distinguishes itself from its sibling start_deep_research by focusing on status checking and report retrieval rather than initiation.

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?

The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool: after starting a job with start_deep_research, passing the job_id. It also clarifies that it returns the report upon completion, implying polling behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling, but the context makes it clear.

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