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

Annotations declare readOnly/openWorld; the description adds materially useful behavioral context beyond them: the $0.25 USDC price, x402 or prepaid-credit payment paths, and exclusion from the free trial. It does not explain the idempotentHint=false behavior or whether repeated calls are cached.

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?

Content and scope are front-loaded before the pricing sentence, so the agent hits the purpose first. The single main clause is long and comma-heavy but each element (sources, outputs, scope, price) earns its place.

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, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description completes the picture with price, payment mechanics, scope limits, and report contents; only the caching/idempotency behavior remains unmentioned.

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 100% with only two well-documented parameters, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or matching guidance for domain/name beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Research) and resource (a company) and enumerates exactly what the report contains: website, tech stack, domain age, registry matches, and 30 days of news with citations. An agent can tell this is a composite company-research bundle without opening the schema, distinguishing it from narrower siblings like company-profile or company-techstack.

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 clear context (research a company in one call) plus scope exclusions: companies only, no personal data, and paid-only (not in the free trial). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as company-profile or company-techstack for agents wanting a lighter call, so routing is only partially addressed.

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