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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context by noting 'current information and news', suggesting a focus on recent data. However, it does not disclose potential limitations such as result pagination, rate limits, or query syntax, which would be valuable beyond the annotations. Still, since annotations cover the core safety traits, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose ('Search the web for current information and news'). It avoids redundancy and is easy to scan, though it could have used that space to add slightly more useful detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is thin but not severely under-specified. However, it lacks any mention of result format, pagination, or typical use cases. For a tool with no output schema, some indication of what the agent should expect (e.g., list of URLs, snippets) would improve completeness. The description is adequate for basic invocation but leaves gaps for a fully informed decision.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (query and limit) with specific descriptions, so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter semantics, such as query formatting, limit constraints, or default behavior. With complete schema coverage, a baseline 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 'Search the web' with a direct verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like news_search or images_search, though 'web' is generic enough to encompass them. It slightly differentiates by mentioning 'current information and news', which implies freshness, but it's not strongly distinguished from other search variants.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without any context about appropriate scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling search tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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