Web search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data traits are covered. The description adds the return composition (title, URL, page text) and the ranking behavior, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about rate limits, result freshness/latency, or failure modes.

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: capability first, usage triggers second. No filler, no restatement of the name or title, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, usage triggers and return shape, which compensates for the absent output schema. The main gap is not relating it to the sibling web_fetch, leaving the search-vs-fetch choice implicit.

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 query, max_chars and max_results are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, default, or formatting detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 live web), plus the shape of what comes back (ranked results with title, URL and page text). It is clearly distinguishable from web_fetch in spirit, but never names the sibling or explicitly contrasts searching vs. fetching a known URL.

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?

"Use it for current facts, news, releases, pricing or anything past the model cutoff" gives concrete trigger conditions. It provides no when-not guidance and never points to web_fetch as the alternative for retrieving a specific page, so the routing decision is only half covered.

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