research_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that clarification_questions should guide rather than be forwarded, that profile=full is the API default, that lite skips review and delivery gates but requires a final checklist, and that local checks do not verify quota. It stops short of stating permissions/idempotency or whether it mutates persisted state.

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?

Purpose and return value are front-loaded, and most sentences earn their place by adding distinct operational guidance. It is dense and fragmentary in places (e.g. 'full remains the API default'), which slightly taxes readability for a 9-line block.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description instead supplies workflow context across siblings (research_status resume, review_readiness pre-check). The only real gap is the undocumented 'language' parameter and absent safety/mutation disclosure.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names the brief keys (question, audience, scope, output, depth, evidence_standard) and explains the profile enum (lite vs full, default full). The 'language' parameter is left entirely unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource ('Create a research task'), plus a second mode ('complete its missing brief') and a return value ('its directory and stage guidance'). It routes one alternative (research_status for resume) but does not distinguish itself from the other research_* siblings it sits among.

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?

Explicit routing is given: resume existing tasks via research_status, inspect review_readiness before collection, and choose profile from the task's purpose. The when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else conditions are stated rather than implied.

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