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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions the cost per call ($0.65 via x402), which is a practical behavioral trait, and implies it performs web research with citations. However, it does not disclose limitations (e.g., timeouts, source reliability, failure modes) or what exactly constitutes an 'evidence packet'. It adds some value beyond the schema but lacks depth.

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 followed by a pricing note. It is perfectly concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. Every part earns its place.

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 simplicity (one required parameter) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior sufficiently. It names the output components (cited sources and evidence packet) though not the exact structure. This is adequate for an agent to know what it will receive, though it could benefit from mentioning pagination or formatting.

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 schema coverage is 100%; the 'question' parameter is described as 'Question to answer with citations'. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond that, such as expected format, length, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description 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 verb 'answer' and the resource 'research question', and specifies the output as 'cited web sources' and a 'concise evidence packet'. It is specific enough to distinguish it from generic web extraction or keyword tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. This fits a 4: clear purpose without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like web_extract or company_research. It does not state any conditions, exclusions, or recommended scenarios. The context of answering a research question is implied but not contrasted with other tools.

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