gemini_research_followup_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, and it only says 'Ask a follow-up question.' It does not disclose whether the tool reuses prior research context, performs additional computation, can be called multiple times, or has cost/latency implications.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds purpose.

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 tool is simple and has a full input schema plus an output schema, but the description itself leaves important behavioral context (what 'follow-up' entails and what state is required) to inference. It is minimally viable but not rich enough to be considered fully complete without annotations.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'completed research' adds slight context linking research_id to prior research, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema.

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 uses a clear verb ('Ask') and names the specific resource ('follow-up question about completed research'), so an agent can tell this is for post-research follow-up rather than a new query. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like gemini_query_tool or gemini_deep_research_tool, but the wording is specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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?

It explicitly frames the correct usage moment: after research is completed, ask a follow-up question. It does not list when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a simple follow-up tool the timing and context are clear.

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