Research Start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the call is non-blocking, returns a poll_task_id that drives polling across three other tools, sources are not added until research_import, and deep mode is web-only. It omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the workflow, then parameter semantics. Dense but every sentence carries useful information; the middle pipeline paragraph is slightly heavy but earns its place by naming the exact companion tools.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be re-explained, yet the description usefully highlights the poll_task_id from the return. Combined with the enum parameter semantics and workflow, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly; only the absence of failure/auth context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: source (web default / drive), mode (fast default / deep, web-only constraint), and notebook (accepts name or ID) are all explained with defaults and constraints. Only query is left implicit, which is self-evident.

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 and resource ("Start a research session in a notebook") and distinguishes itself cleanly from siblings like research_status, research_cancel, and research_import, which it references directly. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear workflow: it is non-blocking, the returned poll_task_id should be carried into research_status/research_import/research_cancel, and you poll status until completed before importing. This tells the agent exactly how this tool fits the pipeline, though it never states when NOT to use it (e.g., vs chat_ask) or any preconditions.

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