search-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful conversion semantics ('main text content as plain text'), but says nothing about redirects, timeouts, non-HTML content, or failure behavior for a network-fetch tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the input domain, the action, and the return shape with no filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 values need not be explained, and rich annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a network tool whose only sibling is search_web, the absence of any routing guidance leaves a real gap for correct tool selection.

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% for the single url parameter, and the schema itself states that private/loopback hosts are rejected. The description repeats the 'public http(s)' constraint without adding syntax, format, or encoding details beyond the schema, 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 (fetch) and resource (public http(s) URL) plus the output form (main text content as plain text), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_web, which is the most likely confusion point.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus search_web, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that search_web discovers URLs while fetch_url retrieves a known one.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the return shape (titles, URLs, snippets), which is modest value given an output schema also exists, but it says nothing about rate limits, result freshness, or error behavior.

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?

A single sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. There is no sentence that fails to earn 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 an output schema handling return values, full schema coverage, and rich annotations covering the safety profile, the description is close to complete for a two-parameter tool. The only real hole is sibling routing against fetch_url, which is a usage rather than a completeness gap.

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 'query' and 'count' (with its 1-10 range and default of 5) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or operator semantics beyond that, so the 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 ('Search the web') and even names the return shape (titles, URLs, snippets), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from its sibling fetch_url, leaving the agent to infer the search-vs-fetch split.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions fetch_url, the sole sibling. An agent choosing between searching and fetching a known URL gets no help, though the tool's obvious purpose limits the practical damage.

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