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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job disclosing cost ($0.01 USDC via x402), recency scope, result count, and coverage limitation. It does not detail the output structure or the exact mechanics of x402, but the most important behavioral characteristics are disclosed.

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 three short sentences, each adding distinct value: what the tool searches, the limitation, and the cost. It is compact, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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 simple single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation facts: time window, result count, cost, and non-comprehensiveness. It leaves out what a result contains (e.g., title, URL, snippet), but this is not essential for deciding whether to call the 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the query parameter beyond the act of searching. The parameter's purpose is inferable from the tool name and first sentence, but there is no guidance on query phrasing, keyword format, or how to construct effective queries.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and identifies a clear resource: 'recent public web coverage from the last seven days'. It also states the exact return shape ('5 ranked results'), distinguishing it from broader tools like web_search by time window and news focus.

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 gives useful context about the seven-day window, the five-result limit, and the fact that it is not comprehensive newswire coverage. However, it does not explicitly tell an agent when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as web_search or search_and_read, nor does it name alternatives for broader searches.

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