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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond that: the operation is premium and costs $0.25 USDC per call, and it produces a cited markdown report. It does not contradict the annotations, though it leaves auth or rate-limit behavior unstated.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that communicates the core activity, output format, and price efficiently. It is appropriately sized, though 'PREMIUM' is promotional rather than functional. No explanatory sentence is wasted because there are so few.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits too much. It states the output format and cost but does not explain the depth parameter, expected research scope, latency, or when to prefer this over lighter siblings. An agent cannot confidently invoke it beyond providing a topic.

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% for both parameters, and the description mentions neither 'topic' nor 'depth.' The required topic is only implicit in the research concept, and the optional depth parameter is completely unexplained. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 research activity and output: 'multi-source web research into a cited markdown report.' This distinguishes it from siblings like web-search or summarize, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The 'PREMIUM' label is marketing framing rather than a functional distinction.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus web-search, web-scrape, or summarize. The only implied usage cue is 'deep research,' but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent must infer when a multi-source cited report is preferable.

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