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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses a concrete cost of 7 points per call and explains how results are paged. That is real operational context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema. It stops short of stating per-page result counts or any pagination ceiling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return fields, and every sentence adds something (return shape, paging, cost). The English/Korean duplication is slightly redundant for an agent but aids the service's bilingual audience.

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 usefully names the returned fields (link, title, snippet), plus pagination and cost. Missing only secondary details such as results per page or how deep paging is supported for a two-parameter open-world search 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 coverage is 100%, with both `keyword` and `page` documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only adds the notion of stepping through pages, which the schema's 'page (default 1)' already implies.

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 ('Google keyword search') and enumerates the return shape (link, title, snippet), which lets an agent distinguish it as general web search from the image/news/shopping/lens search siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is by inference rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'web' against siblings like google_news_search or google_image_search, and paging via `page` is described. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over the other Google search tools, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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