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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a cost of $0.01 and specifies the return format (title, url, snippet, engine), which adds transparency. However, it omits details like rate limits, error behavior, or pagination, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes useful details about cost and output. It is appropriately sized, though it could add parameter context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool is simple, the description covers the purpose and output but lacks essential context about parameters and usage. The absence of an output schema means the return format is described, but input semantics are entirely missing, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation.

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 does not mention either parameter (query or limit). The description solely focuses on output, providing no semantic guidance for the input parameters beyond what the raw schema already shows (type/default). This is a significant gap.

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 clearly states it performs web searches across multiple named engines (Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Brave), giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool web_search_read, so it misses the full distinction for a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like web_search_read. It mentions the cost, which implies it should be used judiciously, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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