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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are evidence-ranked and source-linked, and the operation costs $0.35. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core action first, a clear usage trigger second, and pricing last. There is minor repetition of 'supplied public sources', but no wasted information.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the input requirement and return shape at a high level, plus pricing. The only real gap is that it doesn't spell out parameter semantics, which is partly covered by the schema names.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining 'question' and 'sources'. It mentions 'supplied public sources' but never clarifies that the question parameter is the natural-language query, that sources must be an array of URLs, or the max/min limits encoded in the schema. Property names are clear enough to guess, but the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning.

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 names a specific action ('Collect relevant evidence'), the input source ('supplied public sources'), and the deliverable ('source-linked snippets that agents can cite and verify'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so an agent must infer why it would pick this over document_structured_extractor or url_to_agent_markdown.

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?

'Use when an agent needs evidence-ranked excerpts from supplied public sources' gives a clear selection condition for this tool. It does not list exclusions or name alternative tools for cases where this tool is not appropriate, so it misses a bit of guidance.

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