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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the credit cost (5 credits) and the charge condition (charged only when it returns), plus a constraint that every number must come from a fact. It does not describe auth requirements or return format beyond the listed contents.

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 dense sentence followed by two short clauses. It front-loads the core output list and ends with cost and constraint. Slightly long but every clause contributes 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description provides the essential behavioral context: what is returned, the cost model, and a data-integrity rule. It could be stronger with explicit when-to-use routing against siblings, but it is largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters, including the enum values and topic meaning. The description does not add any parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: it produces the research for one page, enumerated as facts with source URLs, headings, PAA, gaps, an outline, and rules. The verb is implicit ('research...you write the page from this') but the resource and scope are specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like keyword_research or check_content.

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?

It implies usage — 'You write the page in the repo from this' suggests a pre-writing step — but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like keyword_research, plan, or check_content, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions.

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