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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: no API key needed and an explicit fallback chain (HN to DuckDuckGo to Jina-Google) for web search.

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 tight sentences, with the capability statement and the fallback behavior front-loaded. The Korean duplication is redundant for most readers but does not obscure the content.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers sources, cost/key requirements, and fallback behavior. The safety profile is fully provided by annotations, so little is missing an agent would need to invoke it.

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%, so both q and channel are already documented in the schema, including the channel option list. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) and enumerates the exact resources (web, GitHub, YouTube, Reddit), which clearly sets it apart from siblings like reach_read and reach_doctor. It is recognizably the search tool without opening the schema, though it does not name sibling tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The reader must infer that this is the retrieval tool relative to reach_read/reach_doctor from the verb alone.

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