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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely new facts: the result shape (title, link, site, snippet) and the $0.009 per-search price with no charge on failure. It doesn't state auth requirements or rate limits, and it repeats the pricing sentence verbatim.

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 and mostly tight, but the final sentence '$0.009 per call; nothing if it fails' is a near-verbatim restatement of the pricing already given two sentences earlier, which is pure waste in a five-sentence definition.

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 enumerates the returned fields and mentions cost, which covers the essentials for a simple search tool. It leaves the count/pagination behavior, code formats, and failure modes (empty results vs. error) unaddressed despite having the space to do so.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It only gestures at 'narrow by country and language', omitting that these are 2-letter codes and leaving 'query' (max 256 chars) and 'count' (1–20, default 10) entirely undocumented in prose.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Search the web') plus the backing service, and it explicitly delineates scope from its closest sibling by naming web_read for full-page reads. An agent can distinguish it from web_read and the various provider-specific search tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use it for web search, narrow with country and language, and use web_read when a page needs to be read in full. No exclusions against other search-like siblings (e.g. google_drive_search, companies_search), so it stops short of a full when/when-not rule set.

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