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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the full credit price ladder (10/20/35), that charges occur only on success, and per-option cost deltas (+5 analysis, +2 academic, -3 entity enrichment, -5 synthesis). It also discloses the return shape (title, summary, sections, key findings, confidence, numbered sources, enriched entities), which is rare and valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the sibling comparison before the cost detail, and every sentence carries information. The final cost sentence is a compressed run of plus/minus clauses that takes a second pass to parse, which is a minor readability cost but no wasted content.

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 an 8-parameter open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, how long it takes relative to alternatives, what it costs under every option combination, and when to reach for it. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: credit cost per `depth` value and cost deltas tied to `include_analysis`, `source_types`, `enrich_entities`, and `synthesis`. The agent knows the budget consequence of each flag, not just its type.

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 names a specific multi-step verb chain (search, scrape, enrich, synthesize) and the deliverable (a cited report), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `search`, which 'suits a quick fact.' An agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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 gives the selecting condition ('a question that needs many sources and a synthesized, cited answer') and the inverse ('far longer and costs more than search, which suits a quick fact'), naming the alternative tool directly. Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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