Web Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about output shape ('ready to read and cite') and expected call behavior, but it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or other deeper operational traits.

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 front-loads purpose and usage, then moves into parameter and return details without excessive padding. It is dense but each sentence adds operational value, though it could be slightly more structured for scanning.

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 six-parameter search tool with an output schema already present, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and return shape. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining query operator syntax (site:, exact phrase, -excluded), parameter defaults and ranges for count and max_tokens, and the meaning of freshness and market-scoping 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 verb and resource: 'Search the web and get relevance-ranked page excerpts for each result, ready to read and cite.' It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling by saying most questions need no follow-up fetch, making the boundary with `fetch` clear.

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 explicitly frames itself as the 'First tool for any research, fact lookup, or URL discovery' and states when a follow-up fetch is unnecessary ('most questions need one call and no follow-up fetch'). This gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with the alternative implied by the sibling `fetch`.

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