gemini_check_research_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. 'Check the status' is too minimal; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what statuses might be returned, or whether it requires an active research session. This lacks the detail needed for safe autonomous invocation.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple status-check 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 tool that is part of a larger research workflow, the description is incomplete. It lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., the research must already be running), expectations about the output, or how to handle failures. The presence of an output schema alleviates return-value documentation, but context for use is missing.

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% (research_id is described as 'The research ID from gemini_deep_research.'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no further meaning, which is acceptable given the coverage.

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 'Check the status of a deep research operation' clearly states a specific action (check status) on a specific resource (deep research operation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gemini_deep_research_tool (which starts research) and gemini_research_followup_tool (which continues it).

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after starting a deep research operation or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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