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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is scoped to the signed-in user, which implies authentication, but it says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, how web results are sourced or returned, rate limits, or what happens when no results exist. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a short tool definition, even though it is under-specified on other dimensions. Nothing in the sentence is redundant or 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?

Given five input parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a crowded sibling set, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the tool's relationship to other search tools, does not clarify the expected return shape, and does not compensate for the lack of annotations. An agent has too little context to invoke it confidently versus alternatives.

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 the input schema already documents the five parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for query, search_query, user_lat, user_lng, or max_results, and does not clarify why both 'query' and 'search_query' exist. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a verb phrase ('Add web results') and a resource ('a search'), but 'Add web results to a search' is ambiguous: it is unclear whether this executes a web search or augments another search result set. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like search_smart, search_embed, or search_query_router. The signed-in user qualifier adds context but not enough to make the tool's exact role immediately clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools, nor when not to use it. The description states a condition ('for the signed-in user') but does not turn that into usage guidance. It leaves the agent to infer routing from the name alone.

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