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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the result fields (link, title, snippet), clarifies pagination behavior, and discloses a cost per call ('5 points'). This goes beyond what the annotations indicate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a Korean translation and a cost note. The bilingual redundancy is somewhat unnecessary for an AI agent but not wasteful. The essential information is present in a compact form.

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 relatively simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (link, title, snippet), pagination support, and cost. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but given the low complexity and presence of annotations, the description is adequately complete for a search operation.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (keyword and page), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description only reiterates that 'page' is used to navigate results, which is also in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 the verb ('return') and resource ('web search results') with specific output fields (link, title, snippet). It is distinguished from sibling search tools like google_image_search and google_lens_search by explicitly mentioning 'keyword' and 'web search results', which differentiates it from image-based searches.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as google_image_search or google_lens_search. It only mentions pagination usage, which is a how-to detail, not a selection criterion. There is no explicit 'use this for text searches' or 'do not use for images' statement.

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