Follow Up

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions the same-thread constraint but does not disclose that this likely spawns a new (cost-bearing) job, whether the call is synchronous or returns a job ID to poll, or what authorization/cost implications the budgetTier carries.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and its two modes front-loaded; no wasted words. It could be slightly more explicit about the completed-job precondition, but there is no padding.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves meaningful gaps: it does not explain what the call returns (job handle?), whether the follow-up runs asynchronously, or how it relates to `research_status`/`get_results`. Adequate but not complete.

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 documents all four parameters, including the topicIndex/customQuery precedence rule. The description adds only the 'same thread' framing and confirms the suggestions-vs-custom duality, which is a marginal increment over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (pursue/ask) and resource (a follow-on research question from a completed job, in the same thread). It distinguishes itself from the sibling `research` by tying the action to a completed job's suggestions or an existing thread, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 the precondition (a completed job that generated suggestions) and offers two modes — pursuing a suggested topic versus asking a custom question. However, it never states explicitly when to use this instead of `research` or what state the parent job must be in beyond 'completed'.

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