Research the web

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: that it reads through a stealth browser, returns provenance receipts, strips injection payloads, and reports failed sources in `sources` rather than failing the whole call. This adds real behavioral value beyond the annotations, though return format specifics could be further detailed beyond what the output schema shows.

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 paragraphs, each earning its place: what it does, how failures are handled, and when to use alternatives. No wasted words, well front-loaded with the purpose sentence.

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 complex tool with an output schema and good annotations, the description covers usage differentiation, failure semantics, cost/latency control, and behavioral traits. An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out. Highly complete for its complexity.

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 schema documents all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining max_sources is the main cost/latency control and that values outside 1-10 are clamped, and that max_tokens has a server default (GROUNDHOG_MAX_TOKENS). It supplements but doesn't fully compensate the structured schema since the schema is already rich.

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 (research/search) plus resource (the web), and clearly differentiates from siblings by noting this combines `search` + repeated `read_url` into one call. The distinction from read_url and search is explicit.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer `read_url` when you already have the URL, `search` when you only want links. Also warns this is the slowest of the three due to rate limiting per domain, and should be avoided for a single known page. This is model-tier guidance naming alternatives and exclusions.

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