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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds 'live web' and 'in one request', but says nothing about result limits, missing-field behavior, rate limits, or the fact that this is a read-only network operation.

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 compact sentence with no filler and the core idea front-loaded. It is easy to scan, though more implementation detail could make it valuable without bloating it.

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 and no annotations, a tool that performs extraction should say what the response looks like or how missing fields are handled. The one-line description leaves those expectations undefined.

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 0%, and the description only echoes that 'fields' contain structured fields without explaining query syntax or enumerating/describing the allowed field values. The schema itself carries the real parameter meaning.

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 names a concrete action (search + extract) and a resource (live web / relevant pages), and the 'one request' phrasing hints at a combined operation. It does not explicitly position it against siblings such as search_read or search_evidence, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

It implies the natural use case: the agent should call this when the user wants both a web search and field-level extraction in a single request. It includes no when-not or alternative routing clues, leaving the agent to infer when to prefer search_read or search_evidence.

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