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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information by disclosing the synchronous, immediate-return execution model with no polling, which the annotations do not express.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation and the return shape with zero filler. Nothing is restated or wasted.

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 no output schema, the description does the right thing by stating the result shape (title, url, snippet), and the synchronous model is clarified. It omits rate limits, result-count defaults, and the general-vs-domain-search decision, but is otherwise sufficient for a 2-param read tool.

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 params and the nested settings object (country, language, max_results) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no query syntax, locale format, or default-value guidance, so the baseline 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 (runs a web search) and what it returns (ranked title/url/snippet results). The word 'web' implicitly separates it from the hundreds of domain-specific run_*_search siblings, but it never names or contrasts with them explicitly.

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 says nothing about when to choose this general web search over the many sibling domain searches (e.g. run_amazon_product_search, run_yc_companies_search). 'Without polling' hints at a calling-convention contrast but names no alternative and gives no exclusion criteria.

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