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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely important behavioral trait: the tool costs $0.10 USDC via MPP on Base, which is critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. However, it says nothing about latency, depth/length of output, failure modes, or how payment is actually executed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core capability and the cost constraint appended. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 paid research tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it produces and what it costs but omits what the dossier actually contains, expected latency, and the mechanics of the USDC payment. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema already documents it and the description adds no syntax, scoping, or format guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 phrase 'Deep research dossier with live citations' conveys the specific resource produced and its distinguishing quality (depth + citations), which separates it from the lighter web_brief sibling. It stops short of a clear verb (produce/generate) but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over web_brief or any other research sibling, nor any prerequisites (e.g., wallet/payment setup required before calling). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the price note.

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