Curated Domain Registry Scope & Source Authority Filter

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real operational context beyond them — stateless, 32 KB max, 60 RPM, L402 at 10 sats or ?demo=true, and HTTP 400 on invalid input. It stops short of describing result ordering or failure modes beyond the 400, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage then operational constraints, with no filler. The second sentence is a long run-on packing default, payment, size and rate limits together, which costs some scannability but every clause carries 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations already carry the safety hints. The description supplies the remaining decision-critical facts — default tier, cost/payment path, rate and payload limits, and the invalid-input error — so an agent can call this correctly without further probing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by disclosing the 'domain_tier' default ('academic_and_research'), which the schema does not state. It does not explain the 'time_horizon' syntax beyond the schema's own example, so it is not a 5.

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 — scoping search execution and filtering results to verified high-reputation domain registries and regulatory bodies — and identifies the concrete content classes (academic papers, SEC filings, official docs, statutes). An agent can distinguish this curated-authority search from the plain web search and fact-check siblings without opening the schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use clause ('restricting search discovery to verified academic papers, SEC filings...') and routes the agent away with a named alternative: 'for checking specific factual claims, use verify_factual_claims instead.' The selection condition is stated, not implied.

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