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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that extraction is bounded, includes source/timestamp/hashes, and costs 0.003 USDC. However, it doesn't explain what 'verified' means behaviorally, whether it fetches live or cached content, or what happens on failure. The cost disclosure is useful but the verification semantics are vague.

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 compact sentence with useful specifics (bounded, source, timestamp, hashes, cost). It's front-loaded with the core action and scope. Could add a bit more context without becoming bloated, but it earns its place.

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 and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the return format, how verification works, what 'bounded' limits are (beyond maxItems 5 in schema), or how query and expected_fields shape the result. An agent would need to guess at critical invocation details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'source' which maps to source_urls, but doesn't explain query or expected_fields at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's parameter names, leaving the agent to guess how query and expected_fields interact with extraction.

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 verb ('extract') and resource ('public web') with bounded scope, and mentions source, timestamp, and hashes. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like source_backed_search or fetch_evidence, but the 'verified' and 'bounded' framing gives a clear sense of what it does.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like source_backed_search, fetch_evidence, or verified_news_monitor. The description implies a use case (bounded public web extraction with verification) but doesn't state when to prefer it or what conditions make it appropriate.

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