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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot: results are blended with news on time-sensitive queries, with QA/Wikipedia/official sources, and answer cards with live numbers exist only for a few markets. That coverage caveat is exactly the kind of thing an agent needs and would otherwise miss.

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-loads the core statement and the result shape before the type-by-type detail, and the final two lines compactly summarize the parameters. The middle enumeration of news/qa/wiki/answer sources is dense and mildly sprawling, but each clause carries distinct information about what will appear in results.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, yet the description still names the result fields for fast comprehension. Combined with the query-phrasing rule, the source-mixing behavior, and the read_page hand-off, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the choice against the news-oriented siblings is left implicit.

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 schema already documents both parameters, including the 1-50 clamp. The description's 'query: what to search for. limit: 1-50 results (default 10)' largely restates the schema rather than adding format, syntax, or query-operator guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 with NestDaddy's own index') and enumerates exactly what each result contains (title, url, snippet, domain). It also distinguishes itself from the read path by telling the agent to open pages with read_page, so an agent can tell search from fetch without opening either 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 concrete conditions where results change ('For time-sensitive queries (a year, "latest", "today")') and names the correct follow-up tool, read_page, for going deeper. It also prescribes query phrasing ('short key words, not a whole sentence'). It stops short of saying when to prefer the news/news_search siblings over this tool, so it falls one step below fully explicit routing.

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