research_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses mode duration and source counts (fast ~30s, ~10 sources; deep ~5min, ~40 sources, web only), and explains that notebook_id creates a new notebook if omitted. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, but the creation aspect is clear.

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 well-structured with a summary line, usage examples, workflow, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with purpose. The Args section is clear but could be slightly tighter; however, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown but known), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers inputs, workflow, approximate outcomes, and the polling/import sequence, providing a complete picture for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so in the Args section, providing meanings for query, source, mode (with durations and source counts), notebook_id (optional, creates new), and title. This adds substantial value beyond the schema's default values and types.

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: 'Search web or Google Drive to FIND NEW sources.' It provides example use cases ('deep research on X', 'find sources about Y') and distinguishes from siblings by outlining the workflow (research_start -> research_status -> research_import).

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 lists explicit usage scenarios ('Use this for...') and the workflow implies when to use this tool versus research_status or research_import. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools beyond the workflow chain.

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