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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('1 credit per call') and the return shape, which annotations would otherwise have to cover. It says nothing about rate limits, authentication, quota exhaustion, or what an empty/failed search returns.

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 tight sentences: purpose and return shape first, the optional mode second, cost last. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields and the include_content payload. It stops short of covering ranking behavior, result limits versus max_results interaction, or failure modes, which is a modest remaining gap for a search primitive.

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 only 33% — only include_content is documented in the schema, and the description reinforces it. query and max_results are self-describing by name and constraints (default 8, max 15), so the description does not need to do much more, but it also adds no syntax or format detail beyond the names.

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') and even enumerates the return shape (title, URL, snippet), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It never names or contrasts a sibling (scrape_page, crawl_site, extract_content), so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 two-mode framing ('set include_content to also fetch the top results') implicitly tells the agent when to flip that flag, which is genuine usage guidance. There is no explicit when-not or routing advice against the many fetch/scrape siblings, so usage is only implied.

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