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

With no annotations to carry the safety or behavioral profile, the description is the only source for behavioral information. It only states the output shape (titles, URLs, snippets), but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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?

A single, compact sentence with zero fluff. The action and output are stated upfront, making it easy to parse. Very efficient for agents.

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?

The tool is simple, and the output schema likely covers return types. However, the description does not mention any edge cases, limitations (e.g., result count restrictions are in schema), or behavioral details that could affect invocation. It is adequate for a basic search but lacks depth for agents needing to handle unexpected outcomes.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'count') with their types and defaults, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('the web'), and the return content ('titles, URLs, and snippets'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'fetch_url', which likely fetches a specific URL rather than performing a query. The purpose is clear, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, when to prefer 'fetch_url', or any context for selecting between them. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and purpose.

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