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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that results are 'ranked by relevance (Spider.cloud)', which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose pagination, result format limitations, or rate limits beyond what annotations imply.

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 tool's purpose, followed by a usage hint and ranking note. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature (web search with basic result fields), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential input and output expectations, though it could mention supported query syntax or language options.

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 100%, and the schema already describes both parameters (query and limit) well. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 clearly states the tool performs web search and returns page titles, descriptions, and URLs. It distinguishes from the sibling 'scraping.spider.scrape' by suggesting combining them for full content. The verb 'search' and resource 'web' are specific, and the ranking mention adds clarity.

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 a usage hint (combine with spider.scrape for full content) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other web search alternatives (e.g., search.google.web). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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