research_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions starting research but doesn't disclose that this is an asynchronous operation returning a research ID, or any auth or rate limit considerations. The behavior beyond initiation is opaque.

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 sentence with a workflow hint, front-loading the key action. No wasted words.

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 lacks information about the return value (likely a research ID for polling), the asynchronous nature, and does not compensate for the missing parameter description (notebook_id). Given no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and a workflow.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds context about seeking 'NEW sources' but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'start', the resource ('web or Drive research'), and the purpose ('find NEW sources'). It also provides a workflow sequence (research_start → research_poll → research_import), distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 implies usage as the first step in a research workflow. It provides explicit next steps (poll, import), giving clear context. However, it doesn't state when not to use it or alternative scenarios.

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