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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that the tool aggregates sources. It doesn't mention output format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects, offering minimal behavioral transparency.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It earns its place but lacks substance.

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 basic schema and lack of annotations/output schema, the description should clarify sources, return values, and usage context. It is too vague to allow an agent to use it correctly, especially with many sibling search tools.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'query' or 'max_results' parameters beyond their basic names. The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states it's a 'search tool aggregating across sources,' which is a clear verb+resource and distinguishes it from source-specific sibling tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed. However, it doesn't specify which 'sources' are aggregated, leaving some ambiguity about its exact scope.

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 phrase 'aggregating across sources' implies usage when a cross-source search is needed, but there's no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over source-specific searches or any exclusions. It provides only implied context.

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