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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, not idempotent), so the description's real contribution is economical/behavioral: it consumes model credits and returns an answer plus url_citation annotations and ranked sources. That is meaningful context an agent cannot get from the enum and hints. It stops short of saying whether results are cached or how large the response can get, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and the return shape, ending on the constraint. "MisarDev's grounded search" is minor branding that costs a few words without adding agent-relevant information, but nothing else is wasted.

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 only two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description fills the main gap by enumerating the return payload (answer, citations, ranked sources). What remains unstated is failure behavior — what happens when no sources are found — which matters for a grounded-answer 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented with the enum and its default. The description adds nothing about how query phrasing or search_context_size tradeoff affects results — the grounding note applies to output, not inputs. Baseline 3 applies.

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 leads with a specific verb and scope: "Answer a question from the live web with citations." The qualifier "live web" implicitly separates it from the workspace/project-code search siblings, and "grounded search" frames the mechanism. An agent can tell what this does 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?

"Spends model credits" and "quote only what the sources support" give a cost/grounding caveat, which implies this is the pricier option to use deliberately. However, no alternative is named — nothing tells the agent to prefer search_workspace or search_project_code for internal content instead. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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