Research Start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The 'Workflow: research_start -> poll research_status -> research_import' line clearly conveys that this is an asynchronous first step, not a synchronous results-returning call. It also clarifies that the tool finds new sources rather than querying existing content, though side effects like notebook creation are left to the schema.

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 three compact sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, followed by concrete usage examples and the workflow. Every sentence contributes useful selection and invocation 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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and where it fits in the start -> status -> import workflow, while the schema covers the parameters and an output schema exists. It is mostly complete, though it does not mention prerequisites such as Drive sync/auth or explicitly exclude use cases better served by query-focused siblings.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the mode/source mapping ('deep research' -> mode, 'search Drive' -> source) but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides for query, title, and notebook_id.

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 states a specific resource ('web or Google Drive') and outcome ('FIND NEW sources'), so it is clearly a source-discovery tool. It also distinguishes itself from later-stage siblings like research_status and research_import through the workflow line.

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 description gives explicit invocation contexts with natural-language examples: 'deep research on X', 'find sources about Y', 'search web for Z', 'search Drive'. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternative query tools like notebook_query_start, so it stops short of a 5.

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