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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal pipeline (neural search + page read + AI synthesis), the output contents (quotes, URLs, confidence), the cost per call, and the free-failure policy. It does not mention rate limits or explicit read-only status, but the absence of destructive implications plus the cost details are sufficient for this type of 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?

The description is longer than ideal but every sentence earns its place: purpose is front-loaded, followed by scope options, cost, and failure policy. No redundant phrasing; the 'Not a raw SERP' and cost details are valuable differentiators.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains what the answer contains, its limitations, and cost. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to decide and invoke correctly, though it could benefit from an example or explicit alternative-tool routing. Overall, it is well-rounded given the schema's completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra nuance (e.g., 'up to 5 domains', default for max_sources is in schema). It does not introduce any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('ask a question, get a short answer') and explicitly contrasts itself with a raw SERP, distinguishing it from sibling search tools. It also enumerates what the response includes (verbatim quotes, source URLs, confidence), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 explains when to use this tool (for a cited, synthesized answer rather than raw results) and provides clear constraints like date scoping and domain limits. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, but the 'Not a raw SERP' warning and cost model give practical context for selection.

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