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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the price ($0.030), payment method (USDC on Base), lack of account requirement, output fields (position, title, url, snippet, content_source), content format (markdown or text), and the fallback behavior for paywalled or missing pages. This is rich, operationally relevant disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the first states the combined purpose and price, the second explains the output, the third clarifies fallback guarantees, and the fourth specifies payment. Front-loaded with the core value proposition and no 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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient return-value detail (field names and enrichment format), fallback behavior, and payment context. It covers what an agent needs to invoke correctly and interpret results, leaving only minor parameter level details to the already-complete schema.

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 every parameter is already documented with type, default, range, and purpose. The description adds no new syntactic or semantic detail about the parameters themselves; its mention of receiving the number of pages requested relates to output behavior, not parameter interpretation. 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 states a specific combined verb+resource: 'a web search plus the full page text of the top results.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with the alternative separate search and read calls, letting an agent distinguish it from siblings like web_search and web_contents without opening schemas.

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?

It gives clear context for use: 'Search and read in one call' and 'cheaper than a separate search and reads,' which implies the cost advantage over calling web_search and web_contents separately. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternatives by tool name, so it stops short of a 5.

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