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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses result ordering ('most relevant first'), the per-result payload, snippet defaults, and notably the paid access model ($0.006 USDC on Base via x402), which is critical pre-invocation context an agent would otherwise miss. It omits rate limits, failure/empty-result behavior, and how payment is actually settled.

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?

Three dense sentences: what you get, how to narrow it, what to do next, plus cost. Return shape is front-loaded and every clause carries information, including the non-obvious pricing note.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating returned fields, and it covers the optional filters and a sibling hand-off. For a paid, 7-parameter search tool it is nearly complete, lacking only error/empty-result handling and payment mechanics (how x402 settlement is triggered).

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 all seven parameters are already documented with patterns, enums and defaults; the description largely restates category, domains, exclude and since. It adds mild value by framing category as 'kind of page' with examples, but contributes no format or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the web') plus the exact result shape: up to 10 results, relevance-ordered, each with title, URL, publish date, author and best-matching passage. It also separates itself from the read-path sibling by naming /web/contents, so an agent can distinguish search from fetch without opening a 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 clear context for when to use it (query search with optional category/domain/date narrowing) and explicitly routes follow-up reading to /web/contents. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or how it differs from siblings like web_extract or web_fetch, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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