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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context the annotations lack: the cost model ('priced like one read', free daily calls, credits or x402). It does not discuss rate-limit specifics or result pagination beyond the limit cap.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability and return shape first, workflow second, cost last. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields and the cost model, and it explains the follow-up step with read_url. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination beyond the limit parameter, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 100% and the format enum is already fully documented in the schema, including the meta.warning caveat. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource ('Search the web') plus the exact return shape ('ranked list of results (title, url, snippet)'), so an agent knows what comes back without opening a schema. It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling read_url by casting search as the discovery step.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('find pages') and what to do next ('call read_url on the best results'), which is a clear routing rule against the only relevant sibling. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. for direct URL reads where read_url alone suffices), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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