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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: missing sources are skipped and reported, and web_index_fallback results never count as successful native platform searches. Pagination, rate limits, and return shape remain undisclosed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence adds non-redundant semantics for a specific parameter. The awkward line wrapping and absence of any framing for rounds/max_results costs it a point but nothing is wasted.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema search tool with annotation coverage on safety, the description covers source selection and fallback well but leaves multiple tuning parameters (rounds bounds, max_results, per_query_limit, notify) unexplained, leaving the agent to guess at invocation-affecting knobs.

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 0% for 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains sources, queries, and web_index_fallback well (and implies rounds), but topic, notify, max_results, and per_query_limit are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Search all configured sources') and adds distinguishing scope ('bounded query expansion rounds with citations and coverage'), which separates it from the single-page fetch_page/fetch_pages siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives conditional context for sources=None vs explicit sources and for enabling web_index_fallback, which is useful when-to-use signal. However, it never states when to prefer broad_search over source_status or fetch_page, nor any when-not-to-use condition, so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: output is bounded/truncated, redirects are followed but validated, and DNS is validated (an SSRF-style safeguard). It does not say what happens on truncation or on fetch failure.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the scope (public URL) followed by the validation guarantees. Nothing is redundant with the name or annotations.

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 two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral facts (bounded output, redirect/DNS validation, public-only scope). It is slightly thin on return shape (verbatim HTML vs extracted text) and on what a truncated response looks like.

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% for both parameters, so the description must carry the load. 'Bounded' gestures at max_chars but never names it, states its units, or explains the 12000 default, and the expected URL format is left to the schema type alone.

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 ('Extract') and resource ('original HTML/text evidence') scoped to public URLs, which is more precise than a generic 'fetch'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling fetch_pages (plural) or broad_search, so the agent must infer that this is the single-URL variant.

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?

The 'public URL' constraint gives a hint about applicability, but there is no statement of when to use this versus fetch_pages (batch) or broad_search. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: partial-failure tolerance ('individual failures do not discard successful extractions') and that only public pages are fetched, both of which matter for planning a multi-URL call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope bound and failure behavior come first. It is arguably too terse for a tool with 0% schema coverage, but nothing is wasted.

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 and no schema descriptions, the description carries the full burden. It covers the URL cap and partial-failure semantics but says nothing about max_chars behavior or what the extraction results look like, so an agent cannot fully predict the call's outcome.

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. 'Up to 10' effectively documents a cap on the urls array that the schema does not express, but max_chars (default 12000) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (Read) and resource (public evidence pages) with a scope bound (up to 10). The batch nature implicitly separates it from the singular sibling fetch_page, but the description never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer from 'up to 10' that this is the batch variant and that fetch_page is for single URLs, but nothing in the text states that condition or names an alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: probe=True triggers network initialization checks, implying latency and external access. It says nothing about cost, timeouts, or what happens when a source is unreachable.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and followed immediately by the only conditional behavior. No filler and nothing buried.

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 listing tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (configuration readiness per source) and the one optional flag's effect. It could say more about what 'readiness' reports or how failures appear, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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 0% and the single parameter 'probe' is documented only as a bare boolean with a default. The description compensates by explaining that probe=True performs network initialization checks, which is the key semantic an agent needs. The default value is available in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 (List) and resource (every source's configuration readiness), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tools, but those (broad_search, fetch_page, fetch_pages) are in an unrelated domain, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

The description implies when to set probe=True ('performs network initialization checks'), which is a partial usage cue. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over the siblings or what prerequisite state a source must be in for the check to be meaningful.

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