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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: the return shape (source text with [sN] ids) and a call budget of three per request.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return format and budget. No redundant wording, though the 'Up to 3 times per request' clause sits unglossed at the end.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, query intent, return format and rate limit. The main gap is not relating it to the near-identical research siblings, which an agent would need for routing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description clarifies what a query should target (facts about the business/person), which adds modest meaning, but says nothing about document_id beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Search the web') and a concrete resource ('the facts of THIS business, place or person') with enumerated examples (address, phone, schedule, social media). It is clearly a web-research tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the parallel deck_research and landing_research siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated fact types, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus deck_research/landing_research, nor any when-not guidance. 'Up to 3 times per request' is a budget constraint rather than selection guidance.

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