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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the important traits: monetary cost ($0.006 USDC via x402 on Base or Solana), the billing policy for provider failures ('not charged'), and what the response contains. It stops short of rate limits, latency, or caching behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the use condition, then inputs, outputs, fallback route, billing note, example and price — dense and mostly waste-free. The URL-style '/v1/web/search-read' reference and inline price string are slightly awkward but earn their space.

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?

Absent annotations and output schema, an agent still learns the return shape (title, URL, date when known, provider, retrieval time), the payment requirement and asset, failure billing, and the correct sibling for full page text. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: it caps 'max' at 1-10 with a default of 5, and gives the concrete time_range values (day, week, month, year) that the schema leaves unenumerated. It does not explain query syntax or escaping.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource+scope: 'current web results for a query'. It also names the sibling it is not — 'For page text use /v1/web/search-read' — so an agent can distinguish it from web_search_read without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit use condition ('when an agent needs current web results') and an explicit routing rule to an alternative for page text. The alternative is named rather than hinted at, leaving nothing to inference.

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