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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior Domestication. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: the tool is free, requires no account, does not authorize payment, and is meant only for product selection. This complements rather than contradicts the annotations.

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 with the most important constraint (FREE, no account). The repetition of 'FREE' is a minor redundancy, and every other sentence carries meaningful usage or behavioral guidance, so only a small deduction applies.

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?

The tool has a single enum parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations. The description fills the remaining gaps: pricing/contract inspection, no payment authorization, and the precise moment to use it. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema_description_coverage and a well-described enum for the single required parameter, the description does not need to add much. It does restate the task enum values and frames them as research intent, but this is largely redundant with the schema's own parameter description.

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 specific action—'Select a research product'—and clarifies it is an inspection/selection step for price, evaluation path, and contract. It explicitly distinguishes itself from executing research or authorizing payment, which separates it from sibling research-execution tools like answer_bitcoin_question or verify_bitcoin_claim.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after free evaluation when the correct specialist product is unclear.' It also gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Do not use it to execute research or authorize payment,' and directs choosing the smallest appropriate product before paid requests.

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