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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose auth, auto-authorization limits (delegated wallet, per-call/daily/monthly/platform), and that workers return structured source evidence. It omits critical mutation behavior such as charging, job lifecycle, idempotency, cancellation, and how/when to poll for results.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the submit action and auth condition. The authorization-limit clause is dense but earns its place; no obvious filler.

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 complex paid, asynchronous job-submission tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, this is insufficient. It gives high-level auth/return context but omits parameter semantics, result retrieval, and key side-effect details.

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 0% for five parameters, so the description must compensate. It names max_price_cents only in passing and gives no meaning for query, task_type, constraints, or idempotency_key, leaving required and optional parameters essentially undocumented.

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?

Specific verb 'submit' and resource 'paid research' (machine job), with auth and payment scope. Distinguishes somewhat from read/quote siblings by 'submit deeper paid research', but does not name an alternative.

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?

States the caller condition (authenticated phm_ agents) and intent scope (supported lawful intent), implying when to use. It does not mention the quote_paid_machine_job or get_paid_machine_job alternatives, so routing guidance is incomplete.

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