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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: each result carries a URL, a price, and a ready-to-run free trial call capped at 3 a day with no wallet needed. That is exactly the cost/authorization context an agent needs before calling, though result volume and pagination remain undisclosed.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the second sentence carries only high-value facts about what a result contains and what it costs to try.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't document return shape, yet it still summarizes result contents (URL, price, trial call). For a simple one-param search tool that is nearly complete; only result-count or pagination behavior is left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains query with examples and the empty-string behavior. The description's 'by keyword' adds little beyond that; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Search ManyLives' pay-per-call tools for agents ... by keyword,' with an enumerated set of categories (web search, screenshots, market data, AI, contract checks, utilities) that makes the scope concrete. It does not name the sibling it differs from (e.g. web_search, read_pages, list_services), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is implied by 'search ... by keyword' plus the schema note that an empty query lists the most useful ones. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named, so an agent facing free siblings like web_search has to guess.

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