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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: it searches the live public web, returns citable results with specific fields, and signals that full-page retrieval is a separate step. This meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted content. The purpose is front-loaded, the return shape is stated, and the follow-up routing to crawl is included efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the core purpose, result format, and relationship to the crawl tool. It does not mention other sibling distinctions, but the rich schema and annotations fill most gaps.

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 the baseline is 3 and the description need not elaborate. The description does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Search the live public web'), the resource, and the trigger condition ('when the user needs current information, sources, or research'). It also distinguishes from the sibling crawl tool by explaining that full page retrieval happens via passing a result URL to crawl.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool and mentions the crawl sibling for page retrieval. However, it does not explicitly contrast with news, sitemap, or trending, so the agent must infer those alternatives from names rather than guidance.

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