search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (URL and snippet), implying a safe read-only operation, but says nothing about result count, ranking, freshness/latency, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; purpose is front-loaded and the return format follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. It stops short of the result-count, ranking, and freshness details an agent would want before deciding how much to trust the output.

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% and the single parameter is undocumented beyond its name. The description adds no query-syntax, length, or operator guidance, though the lone 'query' parameter is largely self-explanatory, keeping this at the minimum-viable level.

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 (Search) and resource (the web) with a scope qualifier (current information), so an agent immediately knows what it does. No sibling tools exist to differentiate from, so it cannot reach the sibling-routing bar of a 5.

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?

"For current information" implies the usage context — reach for this when up-to-date web facts are needed — but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of limits (e.g., real-time vs indexed). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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