search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint=false, so the safety and external-reach profile is covered. The description adds that results are synthesized into a concise answer with cited sources, which is useful, but says nothing about freshness, result limits, rate limiting, or how open-ended the query can be.

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?

The core sentence is front-loaded and tight. The trailing 'Args:' docstring block restates the single schema field, which is mildly redundant but costs little.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter tool this is nearly sufficient; only search-behavior specifics (freshness, result count, query style) are 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%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does partially by calling it a 'Natural-language search query' — telling the agent not to expect operator syntax. However it gives no guidance on phrasing length, quoting, or how to disambiguate broad queries, so it only half compensates for the gap.

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') and even characterizes the response ('a concise answer with source URLs'), which an agent can act on immediately. It lacks sibling differentiation, but the sibling list is empty, so nothing more was needed.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb — the agent must infer that this is for general web lookups rather than, say, internal document search. No when-to-use context, no exclusions, and no note on when a different retrieval approach would be preferable.

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