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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is synchronous and returns immediately, and it specifies the result fields. This adds value beyond the schema by informing the agent that polling is unnecessary. However, it omits other behavioral details such as rate limits, error behaviors, authentication requirements, or whether the operation has any side effects, which leaves some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('synchronous web search') and the output structure, then adds the key behavioral modifier ('without polling'). There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, and every clause 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?

The description covers the output shape and the synchronous behavior, which is essential given there is no output schema. However, it does not elaborate on the settings object's fields (country, language, max_results), so an agent may still be unsure what values are valid. For a tool with a nested object and no output schema, this is a moderate gap; the description is useful 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides descriptions for the top-level parameters (query and settings). The description does not add any further meaning to the parameters, such as explaining valid country/language codes or max_results limits. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Runs') and resource ('web search'), and specifies the exact output shape ('title, url, snippet'). It also differentiates from siblings by calling out the synchronous nature and immediate return without polling, which distinguishes it from any asynchronous alternative. An agent can tell this is a generic web search tool, unlike the LinkedIn/email/phone siblings.

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 implies usage by noting the synchronous, immediate, no-polling behavior, which hints it is for when results are needed right away. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_research, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions rerouting the agent. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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