Research a query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and non-destructiveness, so the safety bar is lower, and the description usefully adds that results come back as full markdown content per result. It does not mention pagination, truncation at maxLength, or that the DuckDuckGo fallback silently ignores freshness, but those are largely covered by schema descriptions and the output schema.

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?

Three short sentences with zero redundancy: the action, the return shape, and the routing rule are each delivered once and front-loaded in that order.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description need not explain returns or parameters, and it correctly stays high level for a seven-parameter composite tool. A small gap remains in not flagging the composite's heavier cost relative to a bare search, which would help an agent choose between this and its siblings.

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 every one of the seven parameters is already documented in the schema, including count, site, freshness and passagesOnly. The description adds only loose framing ('top results', 'full content'), which touches on count and passagesOnly but supplies no new syntax or defaults, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 concrete verb pair and resource ('Search the web and fetch the content of the top results') and explicitly frames itself as a single-call composite, which separates it from the sibling 'search' and 'fetch' that it replaces.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use this instead of separate search + fetch calls when researching a topic.' That is clear routing guidance, but it does not address when to prefer the sibling 'fetch_batch' (multi-URL retrieval) or 'extract', leaving those distinctions to inference.

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