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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the tool fetches no data, holds no prices, returns a procedure/output schema/quality rubric, and the calling model is expected to run the procedure with its own web search. That distinction between 'framework provider' and 'data fetcher' is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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 defining claim is front-loaded ('Returns a research framework, not the finished analysis'), and the examples are a compact, useful block. There is mild redundancy — 'holds no prices itself' and 'fetches no data' restate the same idea, and a stray double period appears — but structure is otherwise tidy.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the return values need no further explanation, and the description nonetheless explains what kind of artifact comes back (procedure, schema, rubric). Annotations cover safety, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 documents category, services, and city_metro fully. The examples lightly illustrate category and city_metro in use and the normalization intent touches on services, but the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (returns a research framework for a defensible local pricing comparison within a category) and explicitly carves out its niche by stating it is 'not the finished analysis' and 'holds no prices itself.' An agent can immediately tell this apart from any data-returning sibling.

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?

Three concrete example invocations give strong cues for when this applies (benchmarking a category in a city, checking market alignment, handling competitors who don't publish prices). However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are named — it never says 'use X instead' — so it stops short of the top band.

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