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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the payment (pago x402 $0.05 USDC) and the mini-research aspect, but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, output format, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 description is extremely concise, consisting of one phrase. It front-loads the purpose and cost, but omits essential details about input and usage. It is not verbose, but the brevity results in under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about input format, expected output, and usage scenarios. It does none of these, leaving an agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% and the description does not explain what 'input' should contain. The single parameter is required, but there is no hint that it represents the question to be answered. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Responder una pregunta con mini-investigacion' (answer a question with mini-research). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'resumen' (summary) or 'reporte' (report) by specifying the action of answering with research, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings. The description implies it is for answering questions, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues that would help an agent decide between this and related tools like 'resumen' or 'reporte'.

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