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

Beyond the safety annotations (readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses hard behavioral facts: 5-result cap, 20,000-character truncation, failed pages dropped and refunded, stablecoin payment per call, and chain availability (Base/Polygon, not Solana). These are non-obvious operational traits an agent must know before calling.

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 the core capability and return shape, then dense single-clause sentences for limits, refunds, and payment. No filler; every sentence carries operational information.

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?

Even without an output schema, it enumerates the return fields (title, URL, description, page text) and covers limits, truncation, and payment. It stops short of describing auth/onboarding for the paid flow, which is the only real gap for a pay-per-call 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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the limit clamping rules. The description only echoes 'keywords' and 'up to 5 results' without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('web search') plus its distinguishing feature ('with page content... read as clean Markdown, in one call'), which separates it from plain search siblings like google-search. The agent immediately understands the value proposition without opening the 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?

The description implies usage (get pages in one call, keywords only) but never explicitly names when to prefer this over siblings such as google-search, search-plus, or unblock, nor states exclusions. Usage is inferable from the feature set but not routed.

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