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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the call is paid, the exact price ($0.015 USDC per call via x402 on Base), that failover across providers happens automatically, and that an all-provider failure yields a 502 with no charge. It stops short of describing payment prerequisites (e.g. a funded wallet) or any result-size or rate constraints.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return values, followed by the failure/price contract. Minor redundancy between 'one paid call' and the explicit price line, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what comes back, what it costs, and what happens on failure. Only x402 payment setup details are absent, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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% — both 'q' and 'limit' are documented in the schema, including the 1-10 range and default of 5. The description adds no extra meaning about query syntax or what 'limit' counts, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Web search' — and describes the return payload (URLs, titles, snippets), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours like intel_find, intel_do_read, or cryptonews_search, which leaves the routing decision partly to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative: nothing says whether to prefer this over intel_find for discovery, or intel_do_read for fetching a page. The only contextual hook is that it is a paid single-call search, which implicitly positions it as a convenience wrapper, but that is never made explicit.

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