Search the Web

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are ranked, formatted with specific fields, and there is no AI synthesis. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Four short sentences each earn their place: purpose+output, use cases, behavioral caveat, and sibling alternative. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), a high-coverage schema, and the explicit mention of result format and alternative tool, the description is complete for this search tool. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it differs from the key sibling.

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 four parameters (query, country, max_results, max_tokens_per_page) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search the web and return a ranked list of results with titles, URLs, snippets, and dates.' It clearly states the output format and adds 'no AI synthesis,' which distinguishes it from the sibling perplexity_ask tool.

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?

'Best for: finding specific URLs, checking recent news, verifying facts, discovering sources' explicitly defines intended use cases. It also provides an explicit alternative: 'For AI-generated answers with citations, use perplexity_ask instead.' This meets the when/when-not guidance standard.

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