MCP Web Research Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context by mentioning the tool is 'ideal for finding current information' and returns 'structured search results with titles, URLs, and snippets', but it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or potential limitations like result count or freshness. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three concise sentences that each add value: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, and the third describes the return format. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (web search with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return values, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like rate limits or result limitations. The lack of output schema is partially compensated by describing the return format.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter fully documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as query formatting tips or examples. Since schema coverage is high, 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('performs a web search using Google') and resources ('web search', 'Google'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_scholar (academic), take_screenshot (capture), and visit_page (navigation). It explicitly mentions what it searches for ('current information, news, websites, and general knowledge').

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('when you need to research topics, find recent information, or gather data from the web'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't differentiate from search_scholar for academic sources or visit_page for direct page access.

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