Run bounded web research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the response structure (engine_used, per-source method, content_source, extraction metadata) and warns about overstating provenance by distinguishing parsed content from snippet fallback. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent use results correctly. Minor absence of rate-limit/auth notes, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 compact—two sentences—yet packs the core action, usage trigger, and behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information (when to use) is front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 there is a schema for parameters and an output schema (indicated), the description need not restate return types. It still covers when to use, how it differs from siblings, and the key behavioral nuance about provenance. For a read-only, bounded tool, nothing essential is missing—an agent can confidently decide and invoke it.

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 each parameter (query, n, render, char_limit) already has a clear description. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it also doesn't conflict. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the weight; the description offers only a high-level hint about 'bounded' which is already reflected in min/max constraints.

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 and extract'), a resource ('several domain-deduplicated sources'), and a scope ('in one bounded request'). It also names sibling tools by implication, distinguishing this combined operation from separate search and extract tools. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiating.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when the task needs source text rather than only result snippets.' It also provides an exclusion: 'For exhaustive work, search first and extract selected URLs individually instead,' routing the agent to an alternative approach. This is clear, direct guidance.

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