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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It provides useful context by specifying that the tool searches a 'local/open web index' and returns a 'small reranked candidate set,' which implies bounded, reranked output. However, it does not explain freshness behavior, rate limits, pagination, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the resource, action, and output type while leaving room for details.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits parameter semantics and any routing guidance among siblings, leaving the agent to infer important operational details.

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 0%, and the description adds no direct meaning to the query, fresh, or max_results parameters. The phrase 'small reranked candidate set' loosely relates to max_results, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter docs.

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 states a clear verb ('Search'), a resource ('the local/open web index'), and an output characteristic ('small reranked candidate set'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_sources or search_plan, but its resource and output type make the core purpose evident.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose search_web over sibling tools such as search_sources or search_plan. The description implies it is for web-index search, but it does not state when not to use it or which alternatives fit better for related tasks.

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