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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool performs live web research, returns cited sources, and is pay-per-use at a specific x402 cost on Base. It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, but for a low-complexity research tool the disclosed traits are substantive.

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 two compact segments and every word earns its place: the core behavior, the input mapping, and the cost. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 one-parameter, stateless tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: provide a topic, receive researched cited sources, and pay 0.02 USDC. It omits selection guidance, but that is a usage-guideline gap rather than a completeness gap for invocation.

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 parameter description is the generic 'service input', so the description adds real meaning by defining it as the topic to investigate. With only one parameter, this fully clarifies what the agent must supply.

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 concrete action ('web research') and a distinctive output trait ('with cited sources'), so an agent can understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling research/fact-check tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only usage hint is 'input=tema a investigar', which explains what to pass but not when to prefer this tool over siblings like research, deep-research-report, or fact-check. There is no mention of exclusions, alternatives, or selection conditions.

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