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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint already declaring the safety profile, the description still adds real behavioral context: snippets are partial and must be fetched before dismissing a result, and product filtering excludes other products' pages and general purchasing pages. It stops short of describing ranking or failure behavior beyond 'search again with fewer words'.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then usage advice; each sentence carries instruction value. It is on the dense side, and the sentence about contents overlaps with sibling routing already stated elsewhere.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's account of the result structure (matching sections with a location, id, URL and snippet) is necessary and present. Combined with query strategy, product scoping, and the sibling pointer, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds genuine query semantics the schema doesn't (2-4 keywords, API names, whole questions push the right page down) and reinforces when to set or omit product. It doesn't add anything for code, type, or limit beyond the schema text.

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 WebSupergoo documentation and web site) and describes the return shape (best-matching sections with location, id, URL, snippet). It explicitly contrasts itself with two siblings — contents for surrounding pages and lookup_api for a known class or member — so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance (short 2-4 word queries, API name guesses, set product for technical questions), when to retry with different phrasing, and a named faster alternative (lookup_api) for known symbols. It also says when NOT to set product (purchasing/licensing/company questions).

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