clean_web_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: automatic handling of HTTP 402 microtransactions at 0.05 USDC on Base, which tells the agent a cost/payment flow exists. It omits rate limits, whether the operation is read-only, and any failure behavior beyond the 402 case.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the payment detail follows. Slightly short of a 5 only because the second sentence is a cost side-note rather than routing or scoping information.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and payment mechanics but says nothing about result volume, latency, or how summaries are structured. Adequate but with clear gaps around usage and behavior.

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%, so both parameters (query, limit) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('deep web research across multiple sources') and names the output form ('clean Markdown summaries from top results'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like clean_web_scrape or synthesize_web_digest, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite four plausible siblings. The agent must guess whether this or clean_web_scrape is appropriate for a given task.

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