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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds non-obvious behavior: a rate limit (4 calls/minute due to Serper/Google budget) and that results are NOT persisted to contacts. These are exactly the operational traits annotations don't convey.

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-loads the primary use case and alternatives, and every sentence carries routing or operational value. It is slightly dense with sibling comparisons and domain lists, but not wasteful.

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 stateless search tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing pieces: sibling routing, rate limit, and non-persistence. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds query-construction guidance (site:, intitle:, OR, quotes) and highlights job-portal targets, which is genuinely useful beyond the schema's generic 'Google search query' 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+resource (general web search / Google search returning organic results) and explicitly distinguishes itself from multiple siblings by name: search_linkedin_people, read_company_website, and search_google_xray. An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 ('general web research: company info, news, job portals') and when-not (LinkedIn profiles → search_linkedin_people; company's own site → read_company_website; LinkedIn-only → search_google_xray), plus a note that results are not saved to contacts. Full routing guidance.

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