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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: credit cost rules (1 credit on results, 0 on empty or refused searches), authentication methods (OAuth or Authorization header API key), result cap of 10 snippets, per-snippet return fields, and an explicit prompt-injection warning to treat snippets as data, never instructions. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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 the core purpose, then layers scope, return shape, safety warning, cost, and auth in short declarative sentences. Information density is high and nothing reads as filler, though the block is longer than strictly needed for a two-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by specifying the exact return shape (title, URL, fetchedAt, contentHash, up to 10 snippets). Cost, auth, and safety caveats are all covered, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 100%, so both query and limit are already documented with syntax (quoted phrases, or, and -term) and bounds. The description only echoes the 10-snippet cap already present in the schema, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 — searching Contrie's curated index of public technical reference pages — and immediately scopes it by contrasting with what it is not (not the open web, no new fetches, no full text). An agent can distinguish this from generic web search 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?

Clearly frames the usage context ('To read a result in full, request its URL') and enumerates exclusions (does not search the open web, fetch new pages, or return full page text). It stops short of naming a specific sibling tool for the full read, but the routing intent is unmistakable.

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