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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output nature (citations and hashes) and a monetary cost of 0.004 USDC, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or error behavior. The cost disclosure is valuable, but the lack of side-effect or safety information leaves some gaps.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that includes the core operation, key output features, and cost. No filler words; every element adds value. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (two simple parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, and its cost. However, it omits details like the expected output format (e.g., list of results, ordering), any limitations (beyond max 5 sources in schema), and how errors or invalid URLs are handled. For a simple tool this is acceptable, but not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate by explaining what query and source_urls mean. It only implies that source_urls are supplied public sources and that query is a literal search string. It does not specify how to format the query (e.g., single string vs. multiple terms), what constitutes a valid source URL, or any constraints beyond those in the schema. This provides minimal additional meaning over the field names.

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 precise action ('search') with a specific resource ('supplied public sources'), and adds distinctive details: 'literal' search, citations, hashes, and a fixed cost. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like verified_web_extract or journey_verify, which focus on extraction or verification rather than user-supplied source search.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would lead an agent to choose this over other search-like tools. All contextual selection must be inferred from the tool name and description.

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