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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context like real-time results, snippets, and the extra cost of fetching content, but it does not mention potential rate limits, timeouts, or failure modes. The standalone 'Price: $0.015' is vague, and the description omits details about content-fetching reliability, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes cost information without unnecessary fluff. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines functionality, the second explains an optional feature and its cost.

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's moderate complexity (optional content-fetching feature and costs), the description explains the primary function, the optional behavior, and pricing in a concise way. It lacks an output schema and does not detail result format, but mentioning snippets gives adequate context. The ambiguous standalone price is a minor gap, yet overall the description is sufficiently complete.

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%, meaning the schema already documents all parameters. The description only repeats the includeContent behavior (also in the schema) and adds general context instead of parameter-level details. Since the schema handles parameters, 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search the web' and mentions 'real-time results with snippets', which is specific and distinguishes it from targeted siblings like search_news or search_images. The verb+resource combination is unambiguous and directly conveys the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear context that this tool handles general web searches with real-time snippets, and describes an optional content-fetching mode that expands its utility. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools (e.g., search_news), nor does it state exclusions, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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