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

With no annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: live web access, ranked results, optional page text, and a 5-minute cache for repeat queries. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or failure modes, but still provides more than minimal behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause carries useful information. There is no redundancy 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 the absence of an output schema, the description usefully enumerates result fields and adds performance context (sub-second cached queries). It does not cover all edge cases like result count defaults or async behavior, but those are documented in the schema, making this largely complete for a search 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 coverage is 78%, so parameters are mostly documented. The description adds useful semantics by hinting that 'neural and keyword' map to the 'type' parameter and that 'optionally with the page text' clarifies 'includeText'. This supplements rather than repeats the schema.

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 clearly states it performs 'web search over the live web' and lists output fields (title, URL, publication date, author) and optional page text. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like web_search_multilang or web_answer.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web_search_multilang or web_contents. It neither states exclusions nor suggests alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the general description.

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