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

The description hints at 'token-efficient' results, which suggests a behavioral trait, but without annotations, it fails to disclose other important behaviors such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response contains.

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 sentence, which is concise but not effectively structured. It lacks bullet points or clear separation of concerns, and the brevity sacrifices important 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain pagination (cursor), default behaviors, or return format, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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 must compensate. It only implies the 'engine' parameter via the engine names, but does not explain 'q', 'limit', 'cursor', or 'country'. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 'search results' with engine options, which is clear enough for a generic search tool. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'local' or 'history', and the resource being searched is not explicitly stated (e.g., web search).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or suggest sibling tools for specific cases like location or financial data.

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