discover

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint (true) and openWorldHint (true), confirming safe read from external web. The description adds value by detailing AI-driven ranking, intent-based ranking, geo-targeting, and filtering, which are behavioral traits not fully captured by 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and return type, second lists features. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects (scored results, features) but lacks details on default number of results, scoring mechanics, or error handling. Adequate but with gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by grouping features (e.g., 'geo-targeting' maps to city/country) but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond schema descriptions.

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 performs web search with AI-driven relevance ranking and returns scored results with title, description, and URL. It lists supported features (intent, geo, date, keyword), distinguishing it from siblings like search_engine and scrape tools.

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 implies usage through features but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_engine or scrape_as_markdown. No when-not-to or exclusions are provided.

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