search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful behavior: it returns a normalized list, never scrapes a SERP, and explains the historical removal due to confidently-wrong engine results. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the core reliability caveat is well covered.

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 reasonably compact and front-loaded, with the action and return type in the first sentence. The historical changelog sentence is slightly verbose but earns its place by explaining why scraping is intentionally not supported.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the return shape, providers, configuration, and reliability rationale, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It omits details like rate limits and error semantics, but these are secondary for basic invocation.

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 57%, so the schema carries much of the parameter meaning. The description adds environment-variable configuration context beyond the schema, but it does not explain count or timeout_ms and does not fully compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Search the web through a search API YOU control') and the concrete return shape ('normalised title/url/snippet list'). It also distinguishes itself from SERP scraping by explicitly stating it never scrapes, which separates it from the scraping-family siblings.

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 gives setup guidance (MCP_SEARCH_ENDPOINT/API_KEY) and implies use for reliable API-based search rather than scraping, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, such as in-page search via search_page. The usage context is clear but the exclusion is only implied.

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