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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses a lot: it returns cited sources with retrieval timestamps, will honestly refuse on insufficient evidence, charges $0.01/call via x402, and offers a preview. This goes well beyond a generic 'research the question' statement.

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?

Three dense sentences with the main action and output contract front-loaded; pricing and preview are useful extras. No filler, though the first sentence is a long list of output guarantees.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the output contract, refusal behavior, cost, optional inputs, and a preview endpoint. It doesn't detail exact response formatting/x402 invocation, but gives enough for an agent to select and call it.

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 covers half via descriptions for question and freshness, and the description adds that scope and freshness are optional. However, max_sources is left unexplained in both schema and description, so the text only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Answer') and resource ('research question from one bounded web search'), and enumerates the output contract (cited answer, source URLs/labels with retrieval timestamps, refusal, receipt). It is clear about what it produces, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling answer_with_sources or web_extract.

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?

Gives clear scope: use for one concise research question needing one bounded web search, with optional domain/freshness controls. It does not name alternatives or conditions to avoid, so it stops at 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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