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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds helpful context about the role of snippets vs. full pages. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The key behavioral guidance is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 is adequate for a search tool with output schema present. It covers the search action, result-handling behavior, and limits. It could mention return format or result count, but that is not critical given the output schema is available.

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?

The schema has zero coverage in the description. Only 'up to four' hints at the maxItems constraint on queries. Parameters like site, publishedAfter, publishedBefore, and max_results are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their meaning.

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?

Clearly states the tool discovers current public sources via web searches. The scope ('public web') is implicit but sufficient to distinguish from sibling tools like search_article or search_feeds, though it doesn't name alternatives.

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?

Provides practical guidance: snippets are discovery aids and strong pages should be opened before citing claims. Also communicates the limit of up to four focused searches. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the guidance is actionable.

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