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

The description mentions it's a 'paid request', which is useful cost context, and it says 'one request' implying bundling. However, without annotations, it doesn't disclose what 'clean readable content' includes/excludes, whether it returns multiple results, or what failure modes exist (e.g., no results, paywalled pages).

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 efficiently communicates the tool's combined value proposition: search + content retrieval + cost model. Every phrase 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?

For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is functional but minimal. It doesn't clarify what 'clean readable content' means in practice, whether a single page or multiple are returned, or any limitations—context that would help an agent set expectations but isn't strictly required to invoke the tool.

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% with a single query parameter that already has a description. The tool description doesn't add much beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter, the agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 ('Search') and resource ('the live web'), and specifies the additional behavior of retrieving 'clean readable content' from relevant pages. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_evidence or url_clean_content by combining search and content extraction.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when an agent needs both live web search and readable content in a single paid request. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but it differentiates by bundling search+read, which helps routing among siblings.

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