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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the cost ($0.02 USDC, Base) and the return JSON shape, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not mention potential failures, rate limits, or behavior when pages cannot be fetched, leaving some gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loads the core function, and provides essential cost and output details without unnecessary filler. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description provides the return format and cost. However, it omits the semantics of the 'pages' parameter and does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus web_search, making it slightly incomplete for fully informed use.

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%, so the description must compensate but does not. The 'query' parameter is obvious from 'Web search', but 'pages' is not explicitly explained; the phrase 'per page' only hints at its meaning. The schema's default/min/max for pages are not reflected in the description.

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 uses a specific verb phrase: 'Web search plus the full plain-text content of the top results in one call.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling web_search tool by adding the full-content retrieval capability, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use when full page text is needed ('full plain-text content of the top results in one call') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over web_search or mention exclusions. Sibling differentiation is present but not formalized as guidance.

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