gemini_check_research_toolCheck the status of a Gemini deep research operation using its research ID, so you can track progress and retrieve results when complete.
Check the status of a deep research operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| research_id | Yes | The research ID from gemini_deep_research. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and an output schema exists to carry return values. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: no polling guidance, no rate-limit or caching notes, no mention of what status states exist or whether completion unlocks gemini_research_followup_tool.
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?
One clean, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though brevity tips into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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?
With one fully documented parameter and an output schema handling the return payload, the basics are covered. What is missing is the operational context of a status-check tool: when to poll, what the statuses mean, and what to do on completion — gaps a sibling-routing sentence would have closed.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented ('The research ID from gemini_deep_research.'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (check) and resource (status of a deep research operation), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling that starts research (gemini_deep_research_tool). However, it never names that sibling or gemini_research_followup_tool, leaving differentiation to inference.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative tools, and no statement of prerequisites such as needing to have started research first. The only hint is implicit: 'deep research operation' suggests a previously started job, but the agent must infer that polling after gemini_deep_research_tool is the intended flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.