Search the web

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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which tells the agent nothing about cost. The description adds the price per default call (~$0.015), the billing model, the budgetUsd cap semantics, the chargedUsd report, and the required write scope — exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 and return shape, then cost and auth in one dense paragraph with no filler. Slightly crowded — the budget/billing clause could be tightened — but every sentence carries information.

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 three-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, cost, budget behavior and auth scope, which is close to complete. The only meaningful gap is that it does not position the tool against its many search siblings.

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 description's budget details ('default 2, max 10') merely restate what the schema already says for budgetUsd. It adds no syntax, format or interaction detail for query or max_results, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 content class it targets ('current facts, stats or trends'), and describes the return shape. However, it never distinguishes itself from several obvious siblings such as news_search, current_pulse, reference_search or find_evidence, so an agent must guess which search surface applies.

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 phrase 'current facts, stats or trends' implies when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no sibling is named as an alternative. With roughly eight search-adjacent siblings, this omission leaves real routing ambiguity.

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