Free-text web search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses sponsored rows exclusion, that results are not fetched/verified, and provides cost/payment specifics. It also details the exact fields returned, offering high transparency.

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?

Five concise sentences each earn their place: core function, exclusions, verification caveat, pairing suggestion, and cost. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundancy.

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 2-parameter search tool, the description is complete: it explains output fields, limitations (unverified, sponsored excluded), cost, and a workflow. With no output schema, it adequately describes return values and behavioral nuances.

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. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema documents for 'q' and 'count'; it focuses on tool behavior and cost instead.

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 free-text query returns ranked organic results with title, real destination URL, display URL and snippet,' clearly defining the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on web search and even suggests a complementary tool (url_to_markdown).

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 the pairing directive 'Pair with url_to_markdown to read any result' and warns that results are unverified, helping set expectations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives beyond url_to_markdown or state precise 'when not to use' conditions, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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