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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose a genuinely useful trait: cost of $0.65/call and x402 payment requirement, which tells the agent this is a paid operation. It omits auth expectations, rate limits, latency, and any note on whether the call can fail or be retried.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the cost disclosure. Every sentence earns its place; the pricing clause is compact rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must gesture at the return value, which it does ('cited web sources and a concise evidence packet'). For a trivial one-parameter tool that is nearly complete, though it could say more about source freshness or citation format.

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 'question' parameter, so the schema already documents the input and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, length, or format nuance beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Answer a research question with cited web sources') plus the return shape ('evidence packet'), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling research_answer, leaving the agent to guess which to call.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite research_answer and web_search being obvious overlapping siblings. The only routing signal is the price, not a usage condition.

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