run_research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is asynchronous (returns session_id immediately), that it is multi-step, and that the eventual status can be 'complete' or 'failed'. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or what happens after completion, leaving some transparency gaps for an operation that starts a large workflow.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes essential follow-up action (poll get_session_status). Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's async complexity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description covers the essential flow: start the workflow, receive a session_id, and poll until a terminal status. It could mention what the final result looks like or the scope of the workflow, but it is reasonably complete for an entry-point tool, especially since get_session_status is a sibling that likely covers the rest.

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 schema already fully documents the 'instructions' and 'settings' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning; it only restates that instructions are a natural-language task and settings are for the run. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 'Starts the full NeuralVerge AI research workflow' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by highlighting the multi-step, full-workflow nature and the immediate return of a session_id. It explicitly mentions polling get_session_status, which clarifies its unique role among the 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 provides clear usage context: it is the entry point for the full research workflow and should be followed by polling get_session_status. It does not explicitly list when to avoid using it or alternatives, but the distinction from more specific search/extract tools is implied. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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