gemini_deep_research_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'multi-step web research,' but does not explain whether the task is asynchronous, how results are retrieved, if there are rate limits or costs, or any side effects. For a deep research tool, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Start a deep research task'), and contains no filler or redundant phrasing. Every sentence adds relevant information.

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?

This is a complex tool that likely involves asynchronous research and has sibling tools for checking status (gemini_check_research_tool) and follow-up (gemini_research_followup_tool). The description does not explain the research lifecycle, how to obtain results, or how it interacts with these siblings. The existence of an output schema is noted but the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'query' with description 'The research question or topic.' The tool description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'complex questions'), but does not provide examples, format constraints, or additional semantic context. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Start a deep research task using a specialized Gemini model.' It specifies a verb (start), a resource (deep research task), and the method (multi-step web research). This distinguishes it from siblings like gemini_search_tool or gemini_query_tool by emphasizing deep, multi-step research for complex questions.

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 phrase 'answer complex questions' implies usage for complex, multi-step research topics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gemini_search_tool or gemini_check_research_tool. No exclusions or alternative references are provided. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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