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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses no-account/no-key/no-quota, up to 10 results, default top-3 full-page Markdown, optional summary, and multi-query merge/dedup behavior. It omits error handling and exact response formatting, which prevents a top score.

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 dense and front-loaded, with the core behavior in the first sentence. The 'Try GET /search/sample' and content-kit references are mild extras but do not bloat the text; every sentence adds some value.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides a fairly complete picture: return contents, defaults, batching, and authentication requirements. It lacks exact field names and error behavior, but an agent can reasonably infer how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: query's array form and batching, extract/summarize toggles, max_results implied by 'up to 10 results', content_results and include_content implied by 'top 3 full-page Markdown'. Only content_chars is left unexplained.

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 action—real-time web search and content retrieval—with concrete result details (title, URL, snippet, publish date) and full-page Markdown for top results. The verb and resource are clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like read_web_page or summarize.

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: it describes what the tool does, including batch query support, and points to the AgentIndex content kit and GET /capabilities. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_web_page or news, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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