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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context: results are ranked, each includes title/url/snippet, and enabling scrapeResults fetches markdown at an extra credit cost. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with the core function and return format front-loaded, followed by an efficient statement of the optional scrape behavior and its cost. Every sentence earns its place.

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 specifies the return fields and the markdown variant. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, making the tool adequately callable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description independently clarifies scrapeResults's markdown behavior and cost, but it does not add meaning for limit, query, or preferStructure beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (search the web) and names the return payload (ranked results with title, url, snippet). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like scrape or extract, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose search over its many siblings such as scrape, extract, or crawl. The only usage instruction is the conditional scrapeResults note, which addresses parameter behavior rather than tool selection.

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