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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that this is a premium, pay-per-use tool costing 0.5 USDC on Base, which is important before invocation. However, it does not describe the response format, payment failure behavior, or any access prerequisites.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the deliverable type, input meaning, and pricing in a single short string. Every element contributes information an agent needs before deciding whether to call the tool.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential input and payment constraint. Gaps remain around expected output format, citation style, or when to prefer this over deep-research-report and similar siblings, but the tool's low complexity keeps the gap moderate.

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?

The schema only says the parameter is 'service input', which is generic. The description adds real semantics by stating that input equals the report topic, making it clear to the agent what to pass. This is meaningful 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 clearly indicates the tool produces a research report with cited sources, which is a specific deliverable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling research/report tools like deep-research-report or investigar, but 'with cited sources' adds meaningful specificity.

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?

The description tells the agent what input to provide ('tema del informe') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many similar sibling tools. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria.

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