Web Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds beyond that: results can overflow context and `limit` defaults to 10, which is a real behavioral warning an agent needs before calling. It stops short of noting rate limits or whether results are cached/live.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then the context-overflow constraint, then the follow-up tool. No sentence is filler.

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 returned fields (title, link, description). Combined with full schema coverage for pagination and limit, an agent can call this correctly. The only gap is which search backend powers it, relevant given the crowded search sibling set.

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 all five parameters are already documented, and the description's mention of the `limit` default merely restates the schema default. It adds no meaning for `geo`, `locale` or `page` 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Search the web") plus the shape of the result (ranked results with title, link and description), which lets an agent know exactly what it gets back. It does not distinguish this generic `search` from engine-specific siblings such as `google_search`, `bing_search` or `youtube_search`, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 one clear follow-up route ("To read a result, pass its link to scrape_as_markdown"), which is genuinely useful chaining guidance. It offers no guidance on when to pick this over the many engine-specific search siblings, and no exclusions, so usage is only partially implied.

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