start_research

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool performs automatic multi-source search, collection, and cross-verification, which are meaningful behaviors. However, it does not disclose the session lifecycle, whether it is asynchronous, how to track progress via get_research_status, or what happens with user-provided URLs or storage settings.

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, front-loaded sentence that precisely states the tool's purpose without any fluff or repetition. Every word contributes meaning, and the description is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 provides a high-level overview but lacks information about the output of the session, how to retrieve results, and the asynchronous nature of research. Since there is no output schema, the description should explain what the caller can expect in return, but it does not. However, the complete parameter schemas partially compensate for this gap.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters, including enums and defaults, so the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, which corresponds to the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb-action ('Start a new research session') and clearly differentiates this tool from its siblings by describing the automatic multi-source search, collection, and cross-verification process. It identifies exactly what resource is being acted upon (a research session) and the high-level workflow, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 tool is used to begin a research session, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_sources or cross_verify. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned, leaving usage context to be inferred.

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