gemini-researcher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by explaining the tool's dependency on previous responses ('chunks' metadata) and its role in continuation retrieval. It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, but provides essential operational context for a chunking mechanism.

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 with zero waste: the first states purpose and usage context, the second provides a concrete example. Every element earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete usage context and purpose. It adequately explains when and how to use the tool, though it doesn't describe return values or error cases, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the parameters in the example, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Retrieve continuation') and resource ('of a large response'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'analyze_directory' or 'deep_research' which handle different operations. It precisely defines the tool's role in handling paginated/chunked data retrieval.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use when a previous tool response included 'chunks' metadata indicating more content available') and provides a concrete example. It clearly differentiates this as a follow-up tool rather than an initial query tool, with no misleading guidance.

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