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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, open-world operation; the description adds substantive context beyond that: it spends this account's credits under spending controls, verifies results, and returns sources and cost. The async contract (status running → call again with action 'wait' and task_id) is disclosed, which annotations do not cover. It stops short of describing failure/partial-failure behavior or whether a cancelled task still incurs charges.

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 routing rule and cost/verification behavior are front-loaded, and the trailing sentence about 'wait' is actionable rather than filler. The two inline examples are slightly verbose but earn their place by demonstrating the expected goal phrasing.

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 10-parameter, nested-schema, open-world orchestration tool with an output schema, this covers the essentials an agent needs: when to choose it, how to phrase the goal, what it costs, and how to handle the asynchronous lifecycle. Return value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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 already defines each parameter, but the description adds real meaning: 'goal' is described as plain language with two concrete example phrasings, and the submit/wait/task_id interplay is explained procedurally rather than just field-by-field. It does not elaborate on how max_credits interacts with the default or how deadline_seconds affects partial delivery.

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 states a specific verb and scope: it finds and calls the right APIs to accomplish a multi-step goal, returning structured data, files, sources, and cost. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling 'execute' for single calls, so an agent can route correctly without opening both schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit precedence rule ('Use this first whenever a request needs more than one API call'), enumerates the qualifying scenarios (lists, enrichment, multi-source research, filings, CSV deliverables), and names the alternative ('Use execute only for a single call'). It also tells the agent what to do on a running status instead of resubmitting.

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