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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It credibly discloses the return format (title, URL, publication date, author) and performance traits (sub-second on repeat queries, 5-minute cache), which are valuable beyond the schema. It does not cover edge cases like errors or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient to set expectations.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences covering purpose, output, and performance. Every clause adds value, with no redundant phrasing or repetition of schema information. It is front-loaded with the core function and then provides the most important details without bloat.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to explain return values, which it does. It describes the core use case and result format, and the schema covers the remaining parameters in detail. It does not mention asynchronous behavior or all search modes, but the description plus schema is fairly 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?

The schema descriptions cover 78% of parameters, providing solid baseline understanding. The description adds marginal value by mapping 'neural and keyword' to the type parameter and 'optionally with the page text' to includeText, but it does not explain other parameters like category, numResults, or domain filters. Given the high schema coverage, a score 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 and resource: 'Neural and keyword web search over the live web.' It explicitly states the output (ranked results with title, URL, publication date, author, optional page text), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_answer and web_contents by focusing on ranked search results.

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 provides clear context: it is a web search tool that returns ranked results, and can optionally include page text or be restricted by category/domain. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like web_search_multilang or sci_literature_search, nor does it state exclusion criteria. This is clear context without explicit alternatives, meriting a 4.

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