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

The description says 'Search the live web,' implying open-world network access, while annotations declare openWorldHint=false. It also claims 'Deterministic' for a live web search, which is tense. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a concise phrase, and the cost plus determinism/evidence-bounded qualifiers add useful constraints. The semicolon fragment and repeated 'signed' wording are slightly awkward, preventing a 5.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, but the input contract is unspecified and the relationship to sibling search/evidence tools is absent. An agent cannot construct a valid call (it must supply at least one property) nor decide when this tool is appropriate, and the open-world contradiction further undermines trust.

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?

Although context reports 0 declared parameters, the schema requires minProperties:1 and allows arbitrary additional properties, so the agent still needs to know what to place in the input object. The description gives no key names, query format, or search options, and the baseline for 0 declared params does not apply because the schema actually demands at least one property.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search the live web') and states the concrete output ('normalized source URLs and snippets with signed delivery'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling enrichment, inference, and execute tools, which are not search operations.

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?

No statement of when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings such as source_backed_search, verified_web_extract, or fetch_evidence, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only implicit context is 'live web,' which is insufficient for an agent to route correctly among similarly named search/evidence tools.

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