blockrun_search

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: flat $0.08 pricing plus gateway fee, price invariance to max_results, and the notable behavior that requesting a removed X/Twitter source is refused before payment. It doesn't describe response shape or pagination, but the cost and refusal semantics are genuinely useful additions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a compact request shape and bullet-style clarifications. The pricing paragraph is longer than a pure description needs but is defensible for a per-call-paid tool; nothing is padded fluff at the sentence level.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers pricing, request body shape, source options, result-count bounds, date filters, and a pointer to the skill file for full examples. An agent can construct a correct call; only the response format is unspecified, which matters less for a search wrapper.

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 100% but the schema body description is thin, so the description compensates meaningfully: it enumerates the allowed sources subset and default, gives the max_results range and default, and shows from_date/to_date as YYYY-MM-DD. This goes beyond what the structured fields state.

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 line gives a specific verb and resource ("Grok Live Search — real-time web + news") plus the output nature (AI-summarized results with citations). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search tool blockrun_exa, so an agent must infer the difference itself.

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 concrete operating guidance (default sources ["web"], pass both for news coverage, max_results 1–50 doesn't affect price), which tells the agent how to size a request. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over blockrun_exa or the other search-ish siblings, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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