Gemini Research Followup Tool

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a non-mutating operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds the 'completed research' prerequisite, but discloses nothing about whether the follow-up retains prior context, whether it triggers new retrieval/cost, or how many follow-ups are supported.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough that it sacrifices some of the guidance other dimensions need.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a tool that depends on a prior research_id, the description omits how that ID is obtained and what 'completed' state is required, leaving a meaningful gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 both parameters are already documented ('Follow-up question' and 'The research ID from a previous research operation'). The description adds no syntax, format, or linkage detail beyond that, 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('a follow-up question about completed research'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gemini_deep_research_tool (start research) and gemini_check_research_tool (poll status). It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

'About completed research' implies a prerequisite (the research must already be finished), which is useful context. However, it never states the when-to-use boundary against gemini_deep_research_tool or gemini_check_research_tool, nor whether follow-ups can be chained or repeated.

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