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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds real value on top by disclosing the free-tier quota (max 10 results per call), clarifying that the 'approximate' flag means total is an estimate, and explaining that url resolves through a public gateway. It stops short of covering auth requirements or whether more than 10 results can be obtained another way.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the first establishes the operation, the second front-loads the return shape and then the quota constraint. Every clause 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 correctly carries the return contract by naming the exact JSON fields (total, approximate, results with cid/title/excerpt/url) and explaining the ambiguous 'approximate' flag. Minor gaps remain around pagination beyond the 10-result cap and query syntax, 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%, so both parameters (query, limit) are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description reinforces the cap ('at most 10 results per call') but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or format detail beyond the schema, 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 combination ('Full-text search over web pages published on IPFS') that immediately tells an agent what corpus is being searched and how. No siblings exist to differentiate from, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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 by the description (full-text lookup across IPFS-published web pages) and by the free-tier note, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With no sibling tools, the routing burden is minimal, so this is adequate rather than strong.

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